1951-04-30

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I am sure that you and the house will willingly grant to me. You may have noticed that there were a few members absent from this chamber last Friday. The reason for their places being vacant was that the board of trade of the city of Toronto extended an invitation to the entire membership of the House of Commons to be their guests for three days this last week end.
Something over 130 members and their wives, amounting in all to a party of over 200 people, accepted that invitation. This visit to Toronto was one of the best good will trips which it has ever been our privilege to be associated with. It was handled from start to finish in a magnificent manner. On behalf of the members of the House of Commons who made this trip I want immediately to express our warmest appreciation to the board of trade for the arrangements made and the manner in which they were carried out. We spent three full days there, and every moment there was something planned for our enjoyment or something of interest for us to see.
While one would not wish to single out individuals, I do think that special reference should be made to Mr. Gerald Godsoe, president of the board of trade, and Mr. F. D. Tolchard its manager, who were mostly responsible for the arrangements. They were with us continuously, and did everything they could to make our visit both profitable and enjoyable. I think I should also mention the courtesy of the individual members of the board of trade in inviting members to their homes last evening. We from distant places are also indebted to the members of the House of Commons from Toronto who assisted in every way, thus adding to the pleasure of our trip, particularly in meeting their friends.
I think a special reference should be made to the Toronto transportation commission, which placed their buses at our service in the numerous trips we made throughout the
city, as well as the Toronto police commission, who saw to it that no one got lost or went astray.
We acknowledge as well the courtesies extended to us by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, the premier and government of Ontario, the mayor and city council of Toronto, the Massey-Harris Company, Canada Packers Limited, A. V. Roe Canada Limited, the Toronto harbour commission, the management of Hart House, the staff of Sunnybrook hospital, and the Maple Leaf Gardens.
Of special interest to the ladies in the party, visits were arranged to the Toronto art gallery, the Sick Children's hospital, Sunnybrook hospital, and the Royal Ontario museum.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate knowing that the programs handed to us on our arrival were printed in both French and English.
This brief acknowledgment does not permit one to say all that should be said. There are, however, two items of sufficient general interest which might properly be mentioned-One is the Regent park housing development, and the other the Toronto rapid transit system. When some of us visited Toronto three years ago these developments were being talked about and planned. Today they-are both well under way. The Regent park: housing development is one of the first joint undertakings looking towards the removal of slum dwellings and replacing them by fully modern low rental housing units. The rapid transit underground development is the first of its kind to be attempted in the Dominion of Canada, and reflects great credit to the people of Toronto for their faith and foresight in looking to the future.
The city of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, "sold" Toronto to the membership of the House of Commons in a magnificent manner, and in so doing has given the people of other parts of Canada, from the Yukon and Mackenzie territories to our baby sister province of Newfoundland, an opportunity of seeing something of the problems of a large and growing industrial city, and how it attacks them. Toronto has of course long been recognized as the leading industrial and financial centre of Canada, with connections all over the country and in many places outside of Canada. It is recognized as well as

Parliamentarians' Visit to Toronto the educational and cultural centre, at least for the English-speaking portion of our population. It has kept itself well to the forefront through its two annual exhibitions, its international trade fair, and the numerous conventions which have selected Toronto as their meeting place. It is also recognized as having a very good hockey team, and, as we from Manitoba have found out, an equally good rugby team.
It is just about one year ago, Mr. Speaker, that a large part of the province of Manitoba, including the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface, suffered one of the most serious disasters in property destruction that has ever happened in Canada, through the flooding of the Red river. The generous response in material and financial aid from all over Canada, and from many places outside of Canada, was immediate, magnificent and generous. Among those first to offer aid in a very practical and generous manner was the city of Toronto, and as a Manitoban I want to add this as a further word of appreciation.
This acknowledgment is inadequate and far from being complete. We profited by every moment spent in Toronto, and, what is more important, we met and made a lot of new friends.
The board of trade of Toronto and all those [DOT]associated with our visit are to be compli-.[DOT]mented, both for promoting the idea in the first place, and, even more so, for the manner in which it was carried out. On behalf of the members of the House of Commons .and their ladies who made the trip we say: 'Thank you, Toronto board of trade.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Second report of special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.-Mr. Brown (Essex West).

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Ralph Maybank, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Winnipeg South Centre. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



WINNING OF EASTERN CANADA JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIP BY BARRIE FLYERS

Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I

do not think that the occasion of the visit of the members of the House of Commons and their wives to Toronto should go by without bringing to the attention of the house the fact that one of the highlights of their visit was one of the greatest hockey spectacles that, has ever been provided for the public in the great arena in Toronto. I refer to that outstanding team, the Barrie Flyers. The Barrie Flyers come from my constituency, and I am sure that all who saw the game will agree that they put on a hockey spectacle second to none, and that the young men who made it possible for us to enjoy the game and who won the championship for this part of Canada deserve a great deal of credit. The coach and sponsor of the team and the town from which it comes should be exceedingly proud.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Have any awards of the Imperial Service Order been made since 1930?
2.	If so, to whom, and when?
3.	Do these awards apply only to a special category of government employee? If not, to what other persons do they apply?
4.	In what department of the government were the recipients employed?
5.	Were any such awards made to retired government employees?
6.	If so, on what dates, and what were the dates of retirement?
7.	Were any such awards made to persons not employed by the government? If so, where were they employed?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	Yes; 39.
2.	June 3, 1935, Anderson, George Clayton- superintendent of mail service, Post Office Department; Patenaude, Joseph Oscar-king's printer; Rorke, Colonel Herbert Victor- retired chief accountant, Department of National Revenue; Ross, Donald Henry- retired, Canadian government trade commissioner in Australia; Scott, David John-collector of customs and excise; Watson, Harrison-retired chief Canadian government trade commissioner in the United Kingdom.
June 2, 1943, Barnstead, Arthur S.-deputy provincial secretary of Nova Scotia; Bedard, Avila-deputy minister of lands and forests of Quebec; Blair, Frederick C.-director of immigration, Department of Mines and Resources; Bulmer, Charles F.-clerk of the executive council of Ontario; Cathcart, Henry-deputy minister of lands of British Columbia; Coolican, P. T.-assistant deputy Postmaster General; Heagerty, Dr. John J.-

director, public health services, Department of Pensions and National Health; MacPhail, John G.-director, marine services, Department of Transport; Paterson, Hugh D.- inspector of income tax; Robichaud, D. T.- superintendent, bureau of translations.
July 1, 1946, Andison, R. A.-clerk of the executive council of Alberta; Beaulieu, Hor-misdas-secretary, Post Office Department; Blois, Ernest H-deputy minister of public welfare of Nova Scotia; Castonguay, Jules- chief electoral officer; Evans, James H.- deputy minister of agriculture of Manitoba; Fortier, Henri-chief inspector, Post Office Department; Gibson, R. A.-director, lands, parks and forests branch, Department of Mines and Resources; Johns, Francis V.- assistant provincial secretary of Ontario; Jolliffe, Arthur Leigh-director of immigration, Department of Mines and Resources; Jost, Edward B.-general superintendent of canals, Department of Transport; Lafontaine, Charles Edward-inspector of customs and excise; Lax, Thomas-deputy provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan; Lewis, F. Harold-general executive officer, Department of National Revenue; MacMillan, Louis
B.-deputy minister of public works of Prince Edward Island; Payne, Chester- deputy minister of national war services; Prince, Gilbert H.-deputy minister of lands and mines of New Brunswick; Rodd, James A.-director of fish culture, Department of Fisheries; Ronson, W. C.-assistant deputy minister of finance; Sharman, Colonel C. H. L., retired-chief, narcotics division, Department of National Health and Welfare; Valin, Joseph G. A., retired-chief dominion analyst; Vallee, Ivan E.-deputy minister of public works of Quebec; Walker, Paschal-deputy provincial secretary of British Columbia; Way, Ernest O.-director of weights and measures, Department of Trade and Commerce.
3.	The statutes of the Imperial Service Order ordain that only members of the administrative or clerical branches of the civil service who have rendered at least twenty-five years meritorious service shall be eligible to be a Companion of the Order.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	Yes; see answer to No. 2.
6.	Rorke, Colonel-retired-April 30, 1935 -award made June 3, 1935; Ross, Donald Henry-retired April 20, 1934.-award made June 3, 1935; Watson, Harrison-retired June 13, 1934-award made June 3, 1935; Sharman, Colonel-retired April 1, 1946-award made July 1, 1946; Valin, Joseph G. A.-retired May 27, 1946-award made July 1, 1946.
Questions
7.	No. The recipients were at the time of the awards or had been previously in the service of either the federal or the provincial governments.


CANADIAN DESTROYERS IN KOREAN WATERS
Mr. Pearkes:: How many, if any, officers and ratings, other than those of the active component of the Royal Canadian Navy, are serving or have served in H.M.C. destroyers which have seen service in far eastern waters off Korea?


Mr. Blanchetie:: Two officers and thirteen men of the Royal Canadian Naval reserve.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Mr. Diefenbalter:: 1.	Has a division in any department of government been set up for the purpose of exploring development of the St. Lawrence waterway?
2.	If so, in what department, and when was such division constituted?
3.	How many persons are on the staff, and who is in charge?


Mr. Benidickson:: No division has been established for the specific purpose mentioned, but the work of the special projects branch of the Department of Transport includes continuous studies of the St. Lawrence waterway and the preparation of designs, plans, etc., of power and navigation phases of the project. Mr. Guy Lindsay is director of the special projects branch, and a total of twenty-one persons are employed in the unit.


CHICOUTIMI-GRANDE BAIE, QUE., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mail between Chicoutimi and Grande Baie via the offices of Bagotville and Port Alfred, Quebec?
2.	What is he paid for this service?
3.	When does the contract expire?


SAGUENAY AIRPORT-CHICOUTIMI AND LAPOINTE COUNTY POST OFFICES  MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mail between Saguenay airport at Bagotville and the post offices of the counties of Chicoutimi and Lapointe?
2.	What is paid for this service?
3.	When does the contract expire?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: These two questions refer to the following service: Jonquiere-Kenogami and airport at Bagotville, via: Arvida, Chicoutimi, Bagotville, Port Alfred, Grande Baie.
1.	Johnny Renaud.
2.	$2,890 per annum.
3.	December 31, 1954.

Questions


NOVA SCOTIA COLD STORAGE PLANTS
Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	Has the government given any financial assistance during the past ten years to any company or companies for the erection of cold storage plants in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so (a) what amounts have been paid to each; (b) were such amounts by way of loan or outright gift; (c) where are such plants located?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) United Fruit Companies of
Nova Scotia Ltd	$140,314.08
United Fruit Companies of
Nova Scotia Ltd	 79,950.36
Musquodoboit Valley Cooperative Ltd	 3,755.81
United Fruit Companies of
Nova Scotia	 63,486.62
Aca Cooperative Association Ltd	 14,211.39
Scotsburn Cooperative
Creamery Co. Ltd		8,341.21
Farmers Cooperative Dairy Ltd	 5,821.70
(b)	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act.
(c)	United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia, Coldbrook, N.S.; United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia, Canning, N.S.; Musquodoboit Valley Cooperative Ltd., Middle Musquodoboit, N.S.; United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia Ltd., Middleton, N.S.; Aca Cooperative Association Ltd., New Minas, N.S.; Scotsburn Cooperative Creamy Co. Ltd., Scotsburn, N.S.; Farmers Cooperative Dairy Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S.


BANK LOANS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have further statements been issued, or directives sent out since February 22, 1951, to chartered banks regarding the need for restraint in lending activity?
2.	If so, on what date or dates, what are the particulars, and what are the suggested measures to be taken by the chartered banks?
3.	What was the total amount of bank loans on the security of instalment finance paper (a) on February 22, 1951; (b) at this date?
4.	What was the amount of the chartered banks total loans, on each of the above dates?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered' by No. 1.
3.	The monthly return of liabilities and assets of the chartered banks of Canada to the Minister of Finance does not provide for details of the current loans in Canada. Section 115 of the Bank Act requires the banks to transmit once in each year to the minister

a return of the aggregate amount of all loans made in Canada outstanding at a date specified by treasury board, classified according to industries and businesses, and the treasury board may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary to give effect to the provisions of section 115. On September 30, 1950, the date of the latest return, loans to instalment finance companies aggregated $96-5 million.
4.	The two latest monthly returns of liabilities and assets of the chartered banks show the following:
(In millions of dollars)
February 28 March 31 1951	1951
Current loans and discounts in Canada, not otherwise included, estimated loss provided for	 $2,735-5	$2,855-7
Current loans and discounts elsewhere than in Canada, not otherwise included, estimated loss provided for	
Call and short (not exceeding thirty days) loans in Canada on stocks,	debentures,
bonds and other securities of a sufficient marketable value to
cover	,..
Ditto-elsewhere than in Canada	
Loans to provincial governments	
Loans to cities, towns, municipalities and school districts	
Non-current loans, estimated loss provided for	
256-2	252-3
108-9	94-3
113-7	96-4
35-6	29-4
100-8	122-8
1-3	1-3
$3,352-0	$3,452-2


UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION IN CANADA
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Who are the officers of the United Nations society in Canada?
2.	When was this society founded, and by whom?
3.	Does this society receive a grant from the government?
4.	If so, from what department?
5.	What is the annual amount, and for what reason?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	The United Nations association in Canada has a national office in Ottawa and, on January 1, 1951, had twenty-two branches from coast to coast. The patron of the association is His Excellency the Governor-General, the Viscount Alexander of Tunis. The following are the. national officers of the association:
National president, Vincent Price, K.C.; vice presidents, Brigadier Marcel Noel, C.B.E.; Dr. N. A. M. MacKenzie; George S. Mooney; honorary treasurer, J. Stanley McLean; chairman of the administrative committee, Major General E. L. M. Burns; national secretary, Miss Kathleen E. Bowlby.
2.	The United Nations association in Canada was founded in March 1946, as the United Nations society in Canada by: Mr. F. McRae, Senator Cairine Wilson, Judge J. D. Hyndman, Mr. J. A. Maclsaac, Dr. John E. Robbins, Mr. Eric W. Morse, and Mr. Vincent Price. It changed its name in 1947 to the United Nations association of Canada. This association is, in a sense, a continuation of the old league of nations society.
3.	Yes.
4.	From the Department of External Affairs.
5.	The present annual amount granted to the United Nations association in Canada is $10,000. The association was granted $3,000 in 1947; this was raised to $5,000 in 1948, and to $10,000 in 1950. The last increase was recommended by the external affairs committee of the House of Commons in December
Questions
1949, and was authorized by the House of Commons as provided under vote 72, main estimates, 1950-51.
The grant is given to assist the association to stimulate interest in Canada in the work of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, and to spread information in Canada on current issues before the United Nations.


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECT
Mr. Diefenbaker:: What has been the total expenditure made on the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project, month by month, since the 1st of September, 1950, and to date?


Mr. Gardiner:: September	 $ 44,774.20
October	 53,423.87
November	 48,345.93
December	 44,958.68
January	 29,540.96
February	 30,052.86
March	 57,786.49


$ 308,882.99 CHICOUTIMI COUNTY, QUE., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	How many rural mail delivery routes are there in the county of Chicoutimi?
2.	What is the (a) name of each mail carrier; (b) remuneration paid each of them; (c) distance covered by each; (d) expiry date of each contract?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 
COMMUNITY PASTURES IN ALBERTA
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many community pastures are there in Alberta, and where is each located?
2.	How large in acreage is each one?
3.	What are the fees charged for (a) cattle; (b) horses?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Nil.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department sent out cancellation stamps with roman numerals on them?
2.	If so, how many post offices have been issued with this particular type of cancellation stamp?
3.	When were they issued to the post offices?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	2,837.
3.	Issue commenced April 5, 1948, to new post offices and other offices as replacement stamps required.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many (a) pieces of real property; (b) buildings, have been sold by War Assets Corporation for sums in excess of $25,000 between the first day of January, 1946, and the first day of April, 1951?
2.	What was the sale price of each of said (a) properties; (b) buildings, the date of sale of each, and the names of the purchasers?
3.	How many of such properties or buildings, if any, have been purchased by any department of government following sale of the same by the War Assets Corporation?
4.	What was the location of each of such properties and buildings, the date of each of said purchases, and the amount of the purchase price in each case?


GYPSUM-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: 1.	Who are the registered owners of the gypsum properties which are to be used for the manufacture of gypsum products by the plants being erected for the Newfoundland government?
2.	Where are these properties located?
3.	If the owners are companies, what are the names of the directors or officers?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



LEGAL SERVICES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1. What lawyers practising in (a) Toronto; (b) Montreal; (c) Winnipeg, have performed legal services or have been retained as solicitors in any

department of the government since the 31st of March, 1948?
2. How much was paid to each of the said lawyers?



BUTTER IN STORAGE AND SALES

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How much butter did the dominion government and its agencies have in storage on March 1, 1951?
2.	How much butter did the dominion government and its agencies have in storage on April 1, 1951?
3.	To what firms or individuals did the government through its agencies sell butter during the month of March, 1951?
4.	What amount of butter was sold to each firm or individual, and at what price in each case?



PENSION ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to make more adequate provision for children whose mothers are pensioned as widows; to increase the payment in respect of burial grants; to advance the marriage dateline for world war I pensioners and to eliminate the said dateline in certain cases; to provide also for the removal of the means test where the children of a pensioner are continuing their education beyond the statutory age limit; and to provide further for the salaries of the pension commissioners and for certain other administrative purposes with a view to enlarging the scope of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, to provide authority to make accountable advances to provincial workmen's compensation boards on account of expenses incurred by such boards in the investigation and adjudication of claims undertaken by arrangement with the federal government; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the latest letter from Premier Duplessis with respect to the old age pension question, in which he agrees to the constitutional amendment respecting old age pensions, but suggests that the one concerning the sales tax be dealt with later, if at all, is there any reason why the constitutional amendment respecting old age pensions cannot be proceeded with immediately?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The address with respect to the amendment concerning old age pensions is intended to be introduced separately, without waiting for the amendment on the other matter. I understand the Minister of Justice 'Mr. Garson) was in telephonic communication with Mr. Duplessis today, and with Mr. Frost on Saturday, and that not a minute is being lost in endeavouring to get joint agreement on the final text to be included in the address.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement of certain important changes in the high command of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Commissioner S. T. Wood,
C.M.G., has requested his retirement to pension, and will be succeeded by Assistant Commissioner L. H. Nicholson, M.B.E.
Due to the expansion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it has been decided to enlarge the directorate of the administration and organization of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa. The officer selected to fill this important position is Assistant Commissioner Josaphat Brunet, at present the officer commanding "C" Division, R.C.M. Police, Montreal.
The enlarged directorate will deal with the organization of the force and its distribution in the provinces, particularly with the eight provinces with which the dominion government now has agreements. It will also direct the training, apportion strength to meet the ever-changing needs, superintend the organization of staff and similar related matters, apart from actual criminal investigation. Assistant Commissioner Brunet will
30, 1951	2505
Royal Canadian Mounted Police be replaced in Montreal by Superintendent Noel Courtois, who is at present serving at Edmonton.
Other related changes will be as follows: Superintendent M. F. E. Anthony, the present officer commanding at Toronto, has been selected as the new director of criminal investigation at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters, and Superintendent J. Howe of Halifax is being transferred to take Superintendent Anthony's place.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the deep appreciation of the government of Canada for the magnificent service which retiring Commissioner
S.	T. Wood has rendered to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to his country in the work which he has done while a member of this famous organization. He was practically born in the force. His father was Assistant Commissioner Zachary Taylor Wood. A graduate of Royal Military College, Commissioner Wood was appointed an inspector on November 1, 1912, and will complete exactly thirty-eight and a half years' service tomorrow.
Commissioner Wood has a wide and varied experience in the force. He was overseas with the R.C.M. Police squadron in the first world war; he has seen service in all parts of the dominion, including five years in the Canadian Arctic. Indeed, his case is a shining example of the fact that the high ranking officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police put in their full share of service in the difficult positions.
Commissioner Wood served five years continuously in the Canadian Arctic with headquarters at Herschel island in the Arctic ocean north of Aklavik, taking his wife with his first-born son as a baby in' with him. This son, Donald, later gave his life in the service of his country, being killed in action in the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1944 in Europe. The commissioner's second son, Herschel, was born just after they came out of the Arctic and was named after the island on which they had spent five happy and busy years. I have had the great pleasure of conversing with the commissioner about his experiences in the Arctic. I asked him if he were lonely there, and he said that on the contrary they were five of the most pleasant years of his life, and that far from being lonely he was very active and found himself with scarcely enough time to keep up with the arduous duties of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police representative in the Arctic. On occasion his duties involved taking patrols via dog team in which he would travel with Eskimo guides a distance of as much as 1,000 miles over a period

Royal Canadian Mounted Police of five to six weeks, sleeping in igloos built by himself and members of his party.
Commissioner Wood's second son, Herschel, was a member of the force when he recently met his death as the result of a motor accident. Commissioner Wood's third son, John, is now a member of the force.
Commissioner Wood had the advantage of studies of police methods in Scotland Yard, France, Belgium and the United States, and has occupied such important positions as director of criminal investigation and deputy commissioner before he became commissioner. In 1937 he had charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment which was sent from Canada to the coronation of King George VI.
The period since March 6, 1938, that he has been commissioner has been one during which the duties of the force have been unusually arduous. The fact that Commissioner Wood had had first-hand experience in practically every province of Canada, and had had excellent police training, stood him in good stead during his thirteen years of the commissionership.
It is of interest that Commissioner Wood's great-great-grandfather was Zachary Taylor, the twelfth president of the United States. Before he became president, General Taylor, nicknamed "Old Rough and Ready", was famous as an Indian fighter and commander of the army of the Rio Grande. In this latter capacity he brought to an end the war in northern Mexico by an important victory over the Mexican General Santa Anna at the battle of Buena Vista. His victory on this occasion when his forces were outnumbered four to one by those of the enemy was so brilliant as to point to him as a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and he was elected to that great office at the next presidential election. He was president when he died in 1850. The American general and president will rest easily in his grave in view of the career, in one of the famous police forces of the world, of his distinguished descendant, Commissioner Wood.
Since I assumed the duties of my portfolio in November, 1948, it has been a privilege to have Mr. Wood associated with me in his capacity of commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His work has been of immeasurable assistance, and I am glad to take this occasion of paying my personal tribute. Finally, in expressing appreciation of Commissioner Wood's service to Canada, I know that I speak not only for the government but for every member of this house and for the people of Canada.
A few facts with regard to the new commissioner will, I am sure, be of interest. Mr. [Mr. Garson.l
L. H. Nicholson, M.B.E., was born in Mount Middleton, New Brunswick, in 1904. He was a constable in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in his native province from 1923 to 1926, inspector in the New Brunswick provincial police from 1928 to 1930, and inspector in the Nova Scotia provincial police from 1930 to 1932. When the Nova Scotia provincial police force was absorbed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on April 1, 1932, Mr. Nicholson was granted a commission as inspector in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which he has held to date. He was promoted to superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1940, assistant commissioner in 1946, and is now the senior assistant commissioner in the force. During the period from 1941 to 1946 Mr. Nicholson was on leave of absence with the Canadian army overseas, rising to the rank of colonel. He saw active service and was awarded the M.B.E. From 1932 to 1937 Mr. Nicholson was in charge of the criminal investigation branch in Nova Scotia, and from 1938 to 1941 he was in charge of the same branch in Saskatchewan. From 1946 until the present time he has been director of the criminal investigation branch, with headquarters at Ottawa.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that every member of this house fully subscribes to the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that he felt he could safely speak for all of them in expressing to Commissioner Wood our admiration of the great service he has done to Canada, and in extending our congratulations and best wishes to the new commissioner who will take his place.
The office of commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the most important appointments at the disposition of the government. It is significant that the commissioner who succeeds Commissioner Wood served for some years in the criminal investigation branch; that seems to be the *line of succession to this extremely important office.
I am sure that all hon. members will agree that Canadians have every reason to be proud of the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Outside of Canada as well as in this country itself I doubt if there is anything that is more significant, both as an expression of something distinctly Canadian and as an expression of the respect in which we all hold those who are charged with the enforcement of law in this country.
As the Minister of Justice has said, Commissioner Wood comes from a family in which service of this nature was a tradition.

It perhaps is significant that Commissioner Wood received a considerable part of his training in the province of Saskatchewan, as has the new commissioner; and that is appropriate, because there is undoubtedly no single province in Canada more intimately associated with the history and tradition of this great force than Saskatchewan. There is in Battleford a museum which carries forward for the years ahead the great traditions and history of that force while it was such a steadying influence in the more primitive days of this country.
In paying our respects to Commissioner Wood for his splendid service in maintaining the efficiency of that force on such a plane as to call for the respect of all Canadians, we also extend to him and to Mrs. Wood our sincere wish that they may enjoy for many long years the retirement which he will now enter. I think it appropriate also that we extend our good wishes to a young member of that family, John Wood, who carries forward this great family tradition.
Commissioner Nicholson takes over an important post. He will occupy an office that will play a large part in the affairs of this country in the years to come. I believe there are a number of things about which Canadians have some reason to boast. I believe we have a right to claim that there is no police force in the world today which commands or justifies greater respect than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. To Commissioner Wood our thanks go for what he has done to maintain its high standard; to Commissioner Nicholson our best wishes go for success in his new responsibility, and, in relation to the force in its expanded form as announced by the Minister of Justice today, for a continuance of the respect and confidence of the people of Canada.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we should like to join in the unusual but fitting tributes that have been paid by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to one who has been an outstanding public servant in this country. Those of us who have known the mounted police in our own provinces-and I refer particularly now to Saskatchewan-know the splendid service which, as the Royal North West Mounted Police, they rendered in the early days, and how that tradition has been carried on up to the present. In the contacts which some of us had from time to time with Commissioner Wood and his officers, we have been received with unfailing courtesy, and to the people of Canada in many respects they have given excellent service. We join in the tribute to
30. 1351
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Wood, and in best wishes for enjoyment of his period of retirement.
We hope and believe that the traditions established by the Royal North West Mounted Police years ago will be carried forward in the days to come. It is significant that eight out of the ten provinces of Canada have decided to place the policing of their respective provinces under this famous police organization, which not only enforces law and order, but as many of us have good reason to know, has acted to relieve distress in cases of emergency, and often, in the early days, in helping stranded and weary travellers along the difficult trails in the Canadian west.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we should like to be associated with the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Wood, and to say that we too have sincerely appreciated the efforts of this fine, outstanding public servant. Under Commissioner Wood's wise and able leadership the Royal Canadian Mounted Police continued to advance under a tradition that has been high throughout the whole world, and that has been the aspiration of a great many people. I join with others in expressing the hope that Commissioner and Mrs. Wood will have many years yet of happy, enjoyable living.
May I also express the hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the government generally will try to carry on the improvements which Commissioner Wood attempted to make in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to better the conditions for the men in order to be able to attract into the force men of the highest calibre. That work was ably supported in this house, at least of late years, by the former minister of justice, Mr. Ilsley. I am expressing the hope that nothing will impede the progress of the force; that the government and the house will give to the new commissioner, Mr. Nicholson, every assistance in maintaining the high traditions of the force, and in particular, will help him to build up in this country the special investigation branch, which is more important than ever before in safeguarding the interests of the Canadian people in the face of constant threats of communist agitators and others who might want to cause trouble.
I wish to express my own personal appreciation of the fine way in which Commissioner Wood has always co-operated with us in any efforts we have made to improve the administration of justice throughout the world, and also to express the wish that the incoming commissioner, Mr. Nicholson, will receive every support from the people of Canada in carrying out his arduous duties.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, as a private member I wish to join in the tribute that has been paid by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and by the leaders of the various groups on the other side of the house, to the work of Commissioner S. T. Wood, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In my dealings as a member of parliament with Commissioner Wood I have never failed to appreciate his high sense of duty, his patriotism and his tact, and his knowledge of men, which was most helpful to him. He understood that the duty of members of parliament is to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the commissioner of the mounted police in order to see that no abuse creeps into the dealings of the police with Canadian citizens throughout the country. Commissioner Wood has rendered countless services to the Canadian people in general, and many to my constituents in particular. I should be remiss in my duty if today I failed to rise, as I do, to pay my personal tribute to him on behalf of my constituents.
There is another thing, Mr. Speaker, that Commissioner Wood understood, namely, that men are not infallible. A great many people in the civil service and outside of it would never admit that anyone working under them could make an error or a mistake; everybody is supposedly infallible. They go so far as to give the impression that when a man admits an error or a mistake on the part of himself or of his subordinates, he falls in the esteem of his fellow citizens. Such is not the case. Commissioner Wood, on many occasions, personally redressed wrongs for which he was not personally responsible but for which some of his men were. He did that discreetly. He did not want anyone in this country to suffer any injustice at the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He understood that it was essential for the force to keep the respect of the Canadian people as a whole, and that such respect was in danger of being destroyed should any injustice be committed by any man in the mounted police force.
There was one thing that Commissioner Wood could not support, namely, the practice of a constable telling a person against whom a charge had been laid: You are accused of such and such a thing, plead guilty; do not see any lawyer. You will keep your job. You will be sentenced to a small fine and you will be much better off than if you go to a lawyer who will argue your case. Commissioner Wood understood that such a procedure is contrary to the elementary principles of British justice, and that everyone in Canada has the right to defend himself before the courts when a charge is

laid against him. This is one more reason why I rise today to pay tribute to the natural legal sense, the fairness, and the spirit of justice of Commissioner Wood. I hope that his successor will follow in his footsteps and will be worthy of the great tradition of the force.



ANTI-ESPIONAGE BRANCH-PROGRESS OF RECRUITING CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the discussion with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there are two questions that I should like to ask the minister. First, under the new arrangement for an enlarged directorate, will one of the assistant commissioners be in charge of the branch on anti-espionage? Second, in regard to the recruiting campaign taking place across the country for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, how is the campaign turning out? Are you getting the necessary recruits, and of the proper standard?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Answering my hon. friend's second question first, the recruiting campaign is getting along very well indeed. The results are most gratifying, and that I think has been due in part to the change in the basis of payment of the members of the force that was recently authorized by the government.
With regard to the first question, I should like to take it as a notice and give an answer later.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was asked of me on Wednesday last by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He asked whether the placing of newsprint under government control, as announced by the Department of Defence Production, would affect in any way the right of the combines investigation commissioner to inquire into that industry if he wishes to do so. The hon. member was referring to the fact that wood pulp and newsprint had been designated as essential materials under the Defence Production Act. I took the question as notice, and this is the first opportunity I have had to reply.
Section 12 of the Combines Investigation Act provides in part that the commissioner may conduct an inquiry whenever he has reason to believe that a combine exists or is

being formed. Reading the words "if he wishes to do so" in the question, in the sense of "if he has reason to do so under the Combines Investigation Act", the answer to the hon. member's question is no.



PETAWAWA CAMP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Owing to the fire at Petawawa ordnance the other day, which makes three fires in the last few months in defence stores and one thing and another, will the minister say whether anything is being done to prevent these fires? So far there has been a loss of over $300,000.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's information about the size of the last of these three fires is not accurate at all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, then, the newspapers must be wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: Unfortunately we do have fire losses in the armed forces because we have a very large amount of property across Canada which is in various states of repair, and many of the operations carried on constitute additional hazards. To keep down fire losses we have fighting services, excellent equipment, fire prevention campaigns and inspection by fire marshals. We know of no additional way in which more can be done to prevent fires.
With regard to the suggestion made some time ago by the hon. member that we use fire-resisting paint, which he may have had in mind, that of course has been looked into. We have estimated that we have 146 million square feet of buildings to cover, and it would cost $30 million to cover them with fire-resisting paint. We estimate that the balance of advantage would be not to use fire-resisting paint on existing buildings until we had fire losses in excess of $7 million a year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Could you not put it on new
buildings?


Brooke Claxton: That is done wherever it is considered desirable, but the advantages of that paint are often not nearly as great as are claimed for it.

The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that Mr. Speaker do now
Cost of Living
leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.



COST OF LIVING


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melforl):: When this debate was initiated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on April 9, there was much shrugging of shoulders over on the government side, especially among the members of the cabinet. Apparently they thought that the motion was untimely; that it was a little bit unfair that a motion such as this should be introduced in the house just prior to the bringing down of the budget, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had announced would be brought down on the following day, and which the members of the government had indicated was going to take care of some of the inflation which is abroad in the country. But when we read the budget, when we look over what the budget actually does, I ask hon. members if there is anything in it which will immediately effect a reduction in the present cost of living.
It is indicated at least by papers who are favourable to the government that that is not their opinion, because I see in the April 25 issue of the Regina Leader-Post a large headline which says: "Cost of living index likely to hit the 183 mark." When we are talking about this rise in the cost of living, and about points, you and I, Mr. Speaker, often fail to realize just what it means to the average person in this country.
The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) placed certain figures on Hansard, indicating that in 1935-39 the cost of living index basket was worth $1,453; that is, the articles contained in that basket, purchased at that time, cost $1,453 a year. Since then we have had a rise in the cost of living of 80 points. That means that today we are paying $1,160 more for that same basket of goods than we were paying in 1935-39. That same basket of goods is costing us today $2,613. It may not mean so very much to members of this house who have a salary of $6,000 a year plus anything else we may have coming in; but I am telling you that it means a lot to the man or woman on an old age pension who can have an income of only $1,080. It means a lot to the veteran who is on a fixed pension; it means a lot to retired civil servants who are on fixed pensions.
As I said, there is nothing in the budget which would indicate that the cost of living index is not going to continue to rise. As a matter of fact I think I am quite conservative when I predict that the budget itself will cause a further rise of at least two points in the cost of living index, and when that is

Cost of Living
written into the price, the cost of living index in all probability will reach the all-time high of 185 points as compared with the 1935-39 average of 100.
Of course we would be in a terrible position had our income not risen to a certain extent during that same period of years. But the rise in income has been more than offset by the rising cost of living. When he was speaking to this motion on April 9, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) placed certain figures on Hansard. It is not my intention to repeat all of those figures, but on page 1739 he indicated that in 1946 the per capita income in Canada was $786. Now, when the cost of living index figure for that year, 126, was taken into account, it reduced that income in terms of 1935-39 purchasing power to $636.
In 1947 our per capita income had increased to $822, but our effective purchasing income had again been reduced to $607. In 1948 our per capita income was $919, but our effective purchasing income was $593. In 1949 our per capita income was $935; effective purchasing income, $578. In 1950 the per capita income was $962; the effective purchasing income, based on the cost of living index, was only $535. In other words, during those years our per capita income had increased by $176, but our effective purchasing income had been reduced by $101. These are startling figures. Just think; in that period of time, five years, effective purchasing income had been reduced, so far as the average citizen in this country was concerned, by $101.
What are we trying to do to offset the reduced purchasing power of our people? What is the result to those who are raising families and who have to go out and buy boots and shoes and the food, milk and other products they must have in order to raise a healthy family? They are entitled to a decent standard of living, but the result of the present high prices is that we produce much today that they are unable to purchase.
As I said before, it is all right for those in the larger income groups. It is all right for private members on the government side to shrug their shoulders and indicate that there is not much occasion for alarm in the rising cost of living. Certainly there is not much for them to be alarmed about personally. There is not much for the person who has invested in stocks and bonds to be alarmed about when he finds that they have increased in value. There is not much for the man in business to be alarmed about when he finds that his business has increased in value. There is not much for a man with a good farm to be alarmed about when it has increased in value. But it is a different

proposition for fifty per cent of the people of this country who are not even in the income tax paying group. They are the people who are vitally affected by this increased cost of living.
It is time that the private members in all parts of this house got up and said something on behalf of those people whose standard of living has been so radically reduced. It is time that something was done about it.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated that he hopes to proceed with legislation with respect to old age pensions. I am glad it is the intention of the government to proceed with that legislation. However, I would point out that seventy-three per cent of those who are in receipt of old age pensions today are getting the maximum pension and will not get one cent extra by this legislation. Seventy-three per cent of those on old age pensions will be in exactly the same position as they were before. It is not going to help them, and they are the people who should be helped. It is all right to give $40 per month to everybody, but when we do that we should also be protecting those people whose maximum income is $40 a month. They are the people who are affected by this rising cost of living. It is the people on war veterans allowances and other fixed pensions who are affected. We cannot just shrug them off in this house, because there are too many of them. It is time we were doing something to protect people who need protection, who are not able to protect themselves because of their place in our economic set-up.
We all agree that the only way you can beat the rising cost of living is by increased productivity. What is this rising cost of living doing to the production of goods? I submit that in many cases it is reducing productivity. Take the case of the stock raiser. I know of many farmers who, having reached a certain age, decided to go out of production. They had dispersal sales, but not many young men attended those sales to buy stock. Why? The cost of production is so high that they just do not think it is good business to start a herd of cattle when it costs from $250 to $350 to purchase a breeding animal. The result is that many herds are being disposed of and no new herds are being set up to take their place.
Production is dropping. The same thing is happening in the dairying industry. In 1949 there was a reduction of sixteen per cent in the production of butter in Canada. The government are making plans to import butter next year because we are not going to produce enough for our own needs, in spite

of our resources and ability to produce. This condition is brought about by rising costs of production.
Many farmers are saying, "What is the use?" A man decides that he will not build an addition to his barn, nor will he increase his herd at present prices because there is no guarantee for the future. As a result we have a falling rate of production all through our economy today. In many cases this inflationary spiral is reducing production. Normally when prices go up people tend to produce more, but when we reach the point we have reached today, where the increased cost of production is so high, when there is no guarantee for the future, we find production being decreased rather than increased.
This applies as much to labour as it does to the farming population. We find escalator clauses in many of the labour contracts today to enable the worker to meet the increased cost of living. That has an inflationary effect. With a rising cost of living we are bound to have labour trouble. The average labouring man has to pay $1,160 more today for the basic articles included in the cost of living index than he paid in 1935-39, at which time the cost was $1,453. Every point rise in the cost of living means that it costs $14.53 more to buy the same amount of goods. The result will be greater demands for higher wages. We are just in a spiral. It is a case of the dog chasing its tail. Apparently the government are not prepared to step in and make the necessary adjustments or impose the necessary controls to stop this spiral.
I do not know how far they intend to let it go. Will they step in when the cost of living reaches 185? Will they step in when it reaches 200? Nobody knows what the intention of the government is. The result is that many people selling goods today are out to get the most that they can. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) recognized that in the speech he made in the early part of this session, when he said that there was a tendency to get prices up before controls were put into effect.
In my opinion the government should do what was done in Great Britain during the last war; they should have assisted in the production of a line of utility goods. I have seen some of the utility goods produced in Great Britain during the last war-clothing, boots, shoes, furniture and other articles. They were good, sound, reliable goods. They had some value. Today when the head of a family goes out to purchase shoes for his children, unless he is prepared to pay the highest price he will get a shoddy article. The first time the child goes out to play in
Cost of Living
the mud and water it will be found that the shoes are just paper. There is no substantial material in them at all. If the government were to develop certain utility lines of goods in this country of good quality and would provide that such goods would be exempted from sales or excise taxes, or if these particular lines of goods were subsidized, then at least the people in the lower income groups, those who are not paying income tax, would be able to clothe their families properly and send their children to school.
What is happening to the average man today with a family of four of five children? Even if he is getting $3,000 a year do you think he has an opportunity to give his children a high school education or anything more than that? It simply cannot be done. What is happening in large families today is that the children are having to take a job just as quickly as they can. As soon as they leave public school they have to find a job in order to help support the rest of the family. I do not think that is good enough in this country. I do not think it is necessary. I think that we can afford to give at least a high school education to the children of Canada, and that is more than the average family can do with the present cost of living. I think that action should be taken immediately in this matter.
Another point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to do with the question of monopoly control and its effect on the cost of living. If I understood the announcement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) correctly, it was to the effect that even though certain monopolies might be under controls with respect to the sale of their basic materials, they could still be investigated under the Combines Investigation Act. Maybe they can be investigated but I will guarantee that action will never be taken against any of them as long as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) occupies his present position. He made that quite clear in 1946. We have a Combines Investigation Act, but up to date not one major combine has ever been investigated under the act. Certain smaller industries have been investigated. We investigated some of the bakers in western Canada, but when it came to investigating the milling industry that was a different story. They were a little too big, and we did not investigate them.
We investigated the flat glass industry. I ask you: How much do you or I spend on window glass in a lifetime? It is not very much out of our total income. We in western Canada spend a lot more on oil and gas for the operation of our farms but we have never heard of the oil industry being investigated,

Cost of Living
let alone any action being taken against it. Nevertheless every time there is an increase in the price of gasoline in Canada the increase is right across the board. It does not matter whether you purchase your gas from B.A., Imperial or some other oil company. You will find that the increase is the same right across the board for every company in the different areas into which they have divided Canada.


Mr. Murphy:: Is that unusual?


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not know how they get the word around, but it all happens on the same day at the same hour. That is how the increases take place. There has never been one major industry in this country investigated by the government. I have made that statement on more than one platform and I am making it in this house today. Not one major industry will be investigated. The tobacco industry has never been investigated. The other day the minister brought down the budget and increased the tax on cigarettes by 3 cents. Nevertheless people have to pay 4 cents more, 25 per cent more than the increase in the budget. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was presented with the facts he said: I have nothing to do with it. That is the companies' business. We cannot interfere with their business.
Why have we got the Combines Investigation Act if we cannot interfere with some of these things in order to find out whether there is any reason at all for such advances? Certainly it is up to the government to see that the people as a whole get a fair deal. They should see to it that when they impose an excise tax or some other tax people will not have to pay not only the tax but an additional 20 or 25 per cent to some industry which may exercise complete control over that particular industry. We had an investigation of the farm machinery industry before the war. It was proven that a combine existed not only by the investigation which a committee of this house made but also by the investigation made by a committee of the Saskatchewan legislature. It was not a C.C.F. committee either. It was the good Liberal government that was in power there at that time, and which carried on the investigation.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A Liberal government.


Percy Ellis Wright: A Liberal government. In the report of the committee they indicated that in their opinion there was a combine. There was never any action taken under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate the industry, nor will there ever be any taken as long as we have this government in power at Ottawa. They will investigate the smaller companies whose actions only affect a small

part of the total cost of the goods we have to buy. Until there is some control over the inflationary spiral, some control of companies that are taking advantage of the inflationary spiral, our cost of living will continue to rise.
What does this mean to the government? We have a program for the expansion of our armed forces on which we are going to spend $5 billion in -the next three years. We are going to spend that $5 billion for goods and services at the inflationary level existing in Canada at this time. What will be the result of that? The result will simply be that we will spend from $2 to $3 to obtain the same amount of goods and services as we were able ito get for one dollar in 1944 and 1945 when the war ended. For our $5 billion we will get less than $2,500 million based on the 1945 price index. It will cost us twice what it should cost us to rearm. Yet the government hesitates to pay subsidies to maintain price levels. In 1944 and 1945 it cost us approximately $200 million a year for subsidies. In the next three years it will cost the government $2,500 million more in what it is going to have to pay for goods and services in order to rearm. Surely we could spend a few hundred thousand dollars on subsidies in order to make a saving such as was made in the last war.
According to the then minister of finance, for every dollar we spent on subsidies we saved $12.50 for the people of Canada and for the government in the purchase of the necessities of life and the goods that we had to purchase to carry on the war.


Mr. Laing:: Milk was only subsidized to the extent of 2 cents a quart then.


Percy Ellis Wright: Two cents a quart to the consumer and 2 cents a quart to the producer. The producer received a subsidy as weE -as the consumer. There were two subsidies on milk.


Arthur Laing: It would cost a great deal more today to bring the price back to that level.


Percy Ellis Wright: If we brought it back 4 cents it would be a big saving to a lot of people in this country. It would be the same saving of 4 cents as it was then although it would he on a higher base because the base has risen since 1945.


Arthur Laing: You would have to bring it back 9 cents.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not suggesting that we can roll back prices to 1945 levels. I am suggesting that it is time for us to step in and stop the inflationary spiral. I am saying there are ways in which it can be stopped. If we were to do today what we did during the last war, if we were to set the margin of

mark up that could be made by manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, we would catch a lot of these people who are all set, and who have boosted their prices so that they are in a position where they can continue to make an unjust profit if prices are fixed at their present levels. Those people who have unreasonably boosted their margin of profit would then have to roll back their own prices, without the government interfering in their business. That is just one method that could be used, fixing the margin of mark-up. Then by subsidies, such as we used in the last war, we could certainly reduce the cost of living and stop the inflationary spiral still going on in this country.
If we do not, I do not know what is going to happen. People are losing confidence. As I said before, they are not increasing their production; they do not know where they are going from here. We find there is not the same initiative as when people felt more secure. That was how we got increased production during the last war; make no mistake about it. People felt some security; they could see they were going to get reasonable prices for what they produced the following year, so they went into the production of those goods and services. That is why during 1944 we were able to export almost 1,000 million pounds of pork and pork products to Great Britain. Today we have nothing to export. We were able to do that because there was a set price; people knew they could go into production on those commodities, and that there would be a sale for them at reasonable prices. We had surpluses of feed in the country at that time, and that was one reason for our increased production. The same situation exists today; we have a surplus of feed in the country following the last crop in western Canada. On the basis of that surplus we could have increased production if people believed they had any security. But as long as we have the present inflationary spiral, as long as this government will take no responsibility, we are not going to get production in agriculture or in many other lines.
What will be the ultimate effect of this inflation? It will be exactly what Stalin likes to see happen. It is a great pleasure to him when in a country such as Canada we refuse to face up to facts, when we refuse to protect our people in the lower income groups, and get into these inflationary spirals. It is a great help to him when the cost of raw materials reaches the point that we cannot be efficient in our re-armament program, and when many nations not so well off as we are are unable to arm at all. They cannot pay
Cost of Living
for the raw materials, so we have to give them what they need. That is the sort of thing that helps communism. So I say if we are to protect our people, if we are to have an effective rearmament program, and if we are to meet the threat of communism in the world today, this government must do something about the present inflationary spiral.


Mr. Hetland:: I wonder if the hon. member would let me ask one question. As a farmer I quite agree with his agricultural program, but how is he going to get the boys back on the farms with the higher wages and shorter hours in the cities?


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, if the boy on the farm feels that he has some security he will stay on the farm. It is when he feels he has no security, when he cannot see what is going to happen tomorrow or next year, that he takes a job in the city. The farm becomes more attractive when there is some security. I can say one thing definitely; the boys will stay on the farms if we have a proper formula under the Agricultural Prices Support Act which will give them a feeling that they have some future security.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, coming from the farm I am very glad that point has been settled. In opening my remarks I should like to compliment a neighbour, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Murray), who made a great contribution to the debates of this house just the other day. I sometimes think we in different parties forget that when all is said and done the other fellow is not so bad after you get to know him. Then I should like to say, and I believe I am expressing the feelings of most hon. members, that I rather liked the idea of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) giving his parliamentary assistant the responsibility of piloting certain resolutions through this house. As one of the older members I must say I believe this sort of thing gives the younger members an opportunity to display their ability. I am quite sure that on both sides of the house there are many younger members who would be equally capable, but who unfortunately do not have the same opportunity.
I should like to say a word or two concerning the tobacco industry; I think it comes within the purview of what we are discussing, since it seems everyone is using tobacco. I do not know any other hon. member who could deal with the matter with quite the same background. I have grown tobacco; I have manufactured it; I have wholesaled it; I have retailed it; I have smoked it, and I have chewed it. I can hardly reconcile the

Cost of Living
statement the other day by the parliamentary assistant with respect to liquor with the situation we find today in regard to tobacco. My experience goes back to about 1920, and I am going to disagree with the minister on one point. I am sorry he is not here, but his parliamentary assistant is present. If I am not mistaken a Fielding budget in the early twenties gave wholesalers a rebate on the tobacco they had on hand when the excise tax was reduced, I think from $9 to $7.50 and then to $6. That was a precedent which might well have been followed throughout the years; and by not following it I believe this government has lost millions of dollars. I think that was the only time the excise tax on tobacco was first increased and then decreased. The other day the Minister of Finance said that retailers and others had to mark up their products when the excise tax was increased because they had to take a cut when there was a decrease. Well, to my knowledge that decrease in the early twenties was the only one ever made in connection with tobacco.
I am wondering if any of the officials of the department can answer this question. When they are after revenue and put on these taxes, I wonder if they consider only the goods in bond and not the goods in warehouse? If I were a smart manufacturer of tobacco and knew the budget was about to come down-I see some nodding over there as if there might have been some consideration of this point-I would warehouse two, three or four months' supply of tobacco. The members of the house have heard the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) speak about the little tax stamp on a package of cigarettes which only indicates the number of cigarettes in the package. This is a mistake. This tax is costing the people of this country a great deal of money. As I said a moment ago, I can tell the Minister of Finance that if I were a smart tobacco manufacturer in this country-and these manufacturers are as smart as anyone in this country-I would warehouse as many packages of cigarettes with the tax stamp on them as would enable me to supply my distributors for three or four months. The government has lost millions of dollars by its failure to follow the policy of the early twenties of going into these warehouses. A great deal of revenue would have been collected.
It would not be fair for me, coming from western Ontario as I do, where in the last twenty years we have developed a tobacco growing industry, if I did not bring to the attention of the house a resolution which I received from the flue cured tobacco marketing association of Ontario. I do this because,

in the first place, the tobacco growing industry is comparatively new in this country. I shall only recite two or three figures, but in 1930 our production was 36 million pounds; in 1940, 64 million pounds; and in 1950, 139 million pounds. Most of that was produced in western Ontario, but there is a little cigar leaf tobacco grown in three counties in Quebec. I am saying this, too, because of a statement made by the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Sinclair), as recorded on page 2278 of Hansard for April 23. He said:
We have felt from an examination of our tax records that the point of diminishing returns has almost been reached so far as the liquor tax is concerned.
Then, farther down on the same page:
It was for these reasons that in this budget liquor was left untouched.
Now, a startling figure to me was the production of smoking tobacco in Canada, and taking that in conjunction with our increased population from 1940 to 1950 we find that we actually produced less in 1950 than we did in 1940. I have in my mind the idea that this excessive tax on cigarettes is going to be rather a heartache. I would not be surprised if it produced less revenue than the minister expects, and even less than it did last year. It does not seem reasonable that the government would leave liquor untaxed, and yet tax cigarettes in this manner, because someone in every household uses tobacco.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that this matter should be discussed on the budget resolutions in the committee of ways and means. We are considering a motion concerning the increased cost of living.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may be so venturesome, I would agree, but I would say that out of the 262 members in this house, 255 smoke cigarettes. The increased cost of these cigarettes enters into their cost of living just as it does in the case of 99 per cent of the families in the Dominion of Canada. Today tobacco is not a luxury any more than a motor car is. I am not defending the tobacco industry, and I have not any interest in tobacco.
This association which represents such a large segment of our society in western Ontario has no doubt sent a copy of this resolution to the departmental officials, but I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to put it on the record. It is as follows:
At a meeting of directors of the flue cured tobacco marketing association of Ontario, held in Simcoe on April 12, 1951, the following resolution was passed unanimously. We view with alarm the recent increase in the excise tax on cigarettes . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe that matter should be discussed on the budget resolutions.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank you; I shall abide by your ruling, of course. I shall be glad to go on at a later date, but I think the subject is of sufficient importance that it should be brought to the attention of the house. I know if you are in the chair that you will permit the discussion at that time. The parliamentary assistant or the minister may be sufficiently aware of what I proposed to say that some further consideration will be given to the matter.
When the Minister of Finance rose in his place on April 10 to give his fiscal accounting to the country, and at the same time counsel his countrymen what the year ahead held for them in terms of costs to be met and taxes to be borne, there were two primary considerations, two clearly defined problems to be weighed and solved. The first of these, of course, was the necessity of raising revenues to underwrite Canada's defence program and to advance this country's role in the North Atlantic alliance. All Canadians understood the threat that international communism presented to their way of life. All Canadians were prepared to assume new burdens of taxation, and all Canadians were prepared to sacrifice for national security, for regional security, and translated to the ultimate degree, for the preservation of democracy. They were willing to fight for liberty.
The second fundamental consideration was a domestic consideration, that of recognizing the extent of inflation in this country and introducing direct and indirect measures not only of arresting inflation but of alleviating its actual and grinding toll on public morale and on the public and private purse. Let us consider the effectiveness of the budget in dealing with these two phases of Canadian national life, Canadian security from wars and threats of wars, and Canadian domestic and economic security against forces and pressures, as scheming, as evil and as disastrous as those threatening physical attack and physical violence. The budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance doubtless meet the first of these two tests, that of raising revenue. Certainly, in the year ahead, they will provide an unprecedented flow of tax dollars into the national treasury.
Let us now take a look at the second basic requirement of the budget, the need of concrete action to halt and indeed to reverse the pace of galloping prices-in a word, inflation. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of living issue has been dealt with in a previous
Cost of Living
debate in this house during this session. Because of that, sir, I scrupulously intend to avoid threshing what might be regarded as old straw.
No discussion of the budget, of the cost of living or of taxing proposals can be divorced entirely from a discussion of inflation as it exists in Canada today; and no discussion of inflation, it must follow, can be divorced from the cost of living in Canada, regardless of the subject matter of any previous debates in this house. Because, sir, while the budget and its provisions mean the added revenue necessary to finance Canada's preparedness drive and Canada's program of military co-operation with the NATO powers, by their very nature they aggravate and accentuate the one problem which they should have been designed to ease, if not eradicate.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Minister of Finance, by his own words, in his budget speech, has indicted himself on a public charge of having uttered a bogus fiscal document, a worthless cheque drawn on the pay envelope and on the pocket of every wage earner and taxpayer in the country. That may seem to be a harsh interpretation, but it is no harsher than the impact of the tax increases announced by the minister, and which affect the cost of living today in Canada.
The evidence in support of the indictment is the minister's own case in justification of increased excise taxes on a whole range of consumer goods.


Mr. Abbott:: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend; as a matter of fact, I just came in. But are we on the budget debate or are we discussing the amendment to the motion to go into supply? I suggest that it is not desirable that we should have two debates which completely duplicate each other. If my hon. friend is referring generally to causes in the country which relate to the increase in the cost of living, I suppose he is in order; but I do not think he is in order in discussing on this motion the details of my budgetary proposals.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to say in all fairness to the Minister of Finance that I think he is perfectly justified in what he said; but I think he will also agree with me, that, after all is said and done, the budget, by whatever increases it may have caused in the cost of living, would have a bearing on the debate on the subject we have under consideration, namely the cost of living. I do not want to be out of order, and I hope that I may be allowed to continue.

Cost of Living


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to discuss the cost of living and not to discuss the budget or taxes, because if he does so we shall have a duplication of debate. May I read to the hon. member the amendment which is under consideration. It is as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that in view of the announcement made on Wednesday last of the greatest monthly increase in Canadian cost of living during the month of February to the disastrously high level of 179-7 points, immediate consideration should be given to the adoption of appropriate measures to hold down the cost of living and halt inflation."


Joseph Warner Murphy: Then I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that I am quite in order, to be quite fair; and I hope that the Minister of Finance will agree. I do not know how you are going to-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think my hon. friend would be quite in order to discuss the causes of inflation and the economic effects of inflation. But if he is confining his remarks to budgetary measures which can be taken to check inflation, then I suggest that his remarks in that respect should be made in the budget debate. I think he is quite in order in saying that the budgetary measures which have been introduced do not do anything to check inflation but rather aggravate it; perhaps he can say that. Of course I do not agree with him; I disagree. But I really do not think we should have a duplicate budget debate on this motion. We hear a great deal of complaint in this house about wasting time. One of the greatest time wasters is a duplicate debate. This is one case in which I think we might attempt to restrain ourselves.


Mr. Fair:: Bring in a good budget, and we will not have any duplication.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think we shall get along well.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This was the real reason why I felt as I did about this motion. While I had no objection to its being made, I felt it was going to result in just the sort of thing we are getting today.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think it is fair for me to say, Mr. Speaker, that inflation enters into the cost of living. I will try to curb myself in order to keep within your ruling. I certainly do not want to be unfair.
These tax increases presumably are intended as a deterrent to public spending and hence to inflation. These very increases fMr. Murphy.]
are calculated to provide a substantial portion of revenue which the government now requires to finance its way. In short, while the government and the minister profess to champion these newest imposts as inflationary curbs, they are fully aware that they will contribute little as a check to the upward sweep of prices. Indeed, should those tax boosts, by some strange chance, actually prove to be effective dampers to public spending, then the government would find itself in a sorry plight. The Minister of Finance, now estimating for a surplus of some $30 million, would find himself far short of balancing the budget, let alone rounding out the fiscal year with a debt-reducing margin.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I give up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member discusses the budget specifically, I think he is out of order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would say, Mr. Speaker, 'that the spending of any public money affects the cost of living with respect to any citizen in Canada today. While it may seem strange to draw a line here, I cannot reconcile the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance by any means when he suggests that it is a budget speech. What else could it be, Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing inflation and the cost of living
We speak about the excise tax. All these taxes affect the cost of living today.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said before, my hon. friend, like others, confuses cause and effect.


Mr. Fulton:: The original confusion was in the minister's budget.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am going to have an 80-minute speech, Mr. Speaker, if these people do not stop interrupting me.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Judging from the number of sheets of paper that my hon. friend has, it looks as though it might be good for that.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am glad to hear the minister say it might be good.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For that, I said.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It would appear that the minister has little faith in what he professes-apart from the interruptions-namely, the effectiveness of the excise tax to stem public buying. I think that has something to do with the cost of living. One could venture the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that if the trend of public spending should surprise the Minister of Finance and his finance

department theorists, then members of parliament may anticipate another session this fall and another budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out that his speech would be in order in the budget debate.


Mr. Gibson:: Put it in cold storage for a while.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think I am perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, in indicating that if the anticipated revenue that the Minister of Finance has in mind is not forthcoming, there will be another baby budget this fall. I think I am perfectly in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That may be all right in another debate, but it is not in order in this debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think we are discussing the cost of living here, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not so sure.


Joseph Warner Murphy: My point was with respect to inflation and these attempts to curb inflation, and I was saying that the steps that the government have taken might not be as effective as they presume they are going to be. If they are not, then I submit that we may be subject to a fall session and another budget. We have heard discussions in the house this session about the evenness of the taxation; that it applies to the poor as well as those in the higher income brackets. I would rather think that it constitutes inequity as well as iniquity, because those higher taxes and the increased burdens on those in the lower income brackets, as well as on those in the higher income brackets, make no allowance for the different spheres of the different peoples. It needs a little perception to recognize that the principle of a blanket increase works to the detriment of those with less funds, and they are the ones that we in this House of Commons are most concerned about. It bears less heavily upon the rich than it does upon the poor. I think that every member in this house will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we are not very much concerned with those in the very high income brackets, but we certainly are concerned with those in the low income brackets.
The person on low or middle income now must assume the same financial burden as his fellow in the upper income brackets on a wide range of consumer durable goods that
Cost of Living
the government has described as luxuries. The range of goods against which the government has imposed new or higher taxes is open to challenge. I wonder if the electric stove in a modest country cottage or a washing machine in that same little cottage is a frivolous gadget. I am going to suggest to the Minister of Finance that when he goes home tonight he suggest to his good wife that they sell their washing machine for a washboard. I would advise him though to keep the front door open because it will not be the washing machine that will go out the front door.
It seems to me that today we are. taxed as a family unit, and the family unit is the very basis of our national society and our national economy. The government, through the Minister of Finance, has placed an excise tax on marriage. Young couples contemplating a home of their own must reckon not only with cupid but with governmental cupidity. In what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker, I mean no personal offence to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He is not in his seat. I know that he has many appointments, but you will recall, sir, that during the last election campaign all the newspapers and all the magazine articles and photographs depicted the Prime Minister of Canada as the great family man, as the benign parent and grandparent. I have no doubt that there was a great deal of truth in those stories and in those pictures. Most men feel the same way about their families, about their children and their grandchildren-I know I do. I know that the leader of my party makes no secret of his affection for his own family. We are proud of that. But I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the Liberal government now reconciles the multimillion dollar publicity campaign it sponsored to build up that portrait of the Prime Minister in the public mind with the Liberal government's budgetary bludgeoning of Canadian families now established, and of young couples intending to establish homes of their own. Indeed, the government, through its taxing methods, tells young couples, intoxicated with romance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is too much for the Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member once more, but he is out of order.


John Lambert Gibson: He should have made this speech on the budget; it is a good one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Intoxicated with love.

Cost of Living


Joseph Warner Murphy: Intoxicated with romance. I said it for the minister's ears. If he did not hear it the first time-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I got the gist of it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The minister got the gist of it; that is the main thing. Indeed the government, through its budget, tells young couples, intoxicated with romance, to stay drunk. It is cheaper. And to this end it taxes stoves, furniture and home appliances. Someone said, not wood stoves. Of course that is one of these little blunders. To console them, it leaves alcoholic beverages free of further imposts. Of course the Minister of Finance will indicate that that has nothing to do with the cost of living. If it is provided free, as it was last Friday night, of course it would not. I hope that the hon. members who went to Toronto will come back and give us some ideas about what at one time used to be a Conservative city.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad you used the past tense.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am glad you got that. What a travesty. What a cynical, iniquitous thing is this latest Liberal budget, and the various means they have found to increase the cost of living.
In his budget speech the minister emphasized that some of his proposals were to be regarded-I think this will apply to the argument that I propose to make-as an interim policy for the current year only. He said he regarded his tax-on-tax system as an easy and convenient way of raising revenue, a further admission that the government has its eye more on the number of tax dollars that it can amass than upon relieving any of the inflationary pressures now bearing down on the Canadian' family. But, Mr. Speaker, to leave aside the government's total disregard of inflation the total lack of budgetary steps to contain and defeat it by various methods, does it not strike you as inconsistent that the Minister of Finance at this late date can do no better than to enunciate an interim financial policy for this country? It is true that people in any walk of life today cannot look very far ahead when they are deciding on business operations, and depend more or less on government long-term policy to make up their minds as to what they should or should not do. That applies equally to those who may have to go out and buy necessary essentials for their homes.
In bringing before this house its military program, the government has set out a three-year program of rearmament and irecruit-ment. It makes no difference whether you have $10 or $10,000 to spend, you are budgeting. In its defence production program the

government has brought down legislation not for one year, not for two, three years, but for five years. In a whole range of ministerial speeches the Canadian people have been warned that the price of peace will come high, and that even though war may not come, Canada's defence preparedness will have to be maintained for many years to come. Plainly in the military sphere and in the realm of defence production Canada is being geared1 for a long-drawn effort to eliminate the threat of soviet imperialism. There can be no room for doubt on that score.
Yet despite all this the Minister of Finance tells the House of Commons and the Canadian people that we must wait for another year before he can determine which way the wind is blowing. If the minister is right in that attitude, then all the rest of the government is out of step with him. Or if government military and production planning for the years ahead is the proper course, and I believe it is, then it would appear that the Minister of Finance is out of step with the rest of the government. In other words, the minister should have placed before parliament and the people a properly reasoned and reasonable fiscal policy, not a twelve-months makeshift that he has been twelve months in the making hut which he can shift at will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but if the
hon. member continues along this line I shall have to ask him to discontinue his speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There are only two or three more items and I hope I can continue. I would not want to be out of order, but this is a very broad subject and I think I should be given the opportunity to go into many avenues with respect to the effect of the cost of living. I do submit that as the debate continues more latitude must be allowed to those who are endeavouring in their own way to show that the things I have been discussing have some bearing on the cost of living. I hope I can continue and I shall try to keep within the rules. If not, then I shall gladly abide by them.
The government has been dodging the issue of price controls. I am glad to see Your Honour smiling so I imagine I am in order. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others have said repeatedly that they were convinced that such a system would not work at this time. They have insisted that a program of partial controls was doomed to failure. When I spoke in this house some few weeks ago I not only said that we should have controls but, and I repeat, I said that prices should be rolled back. I did not get much support for that idea from any part of the house.


John Lambert Gibson: Hear, hear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-why doesn't he get a constituency people can spell?-agrees with me. They have insisted, too, that a program of complete controls would not work because of enforcement. Here again we have another display of Liberal government inconsistencj'. Harking back once more to the budget address of the minister we find these words, referring to the government:
We can restrain the expansion of credit; and we can apply direct controls either to particular conditions or, if necessary, more generally.
The government should make up its mind. Either there is inflation, or there is not. Either it can implement price controls to relieve that trend, or it cannot. This is the government that boasted during and after the war of its tried and proved experience and of the success of its price control policy. What do we find now? Out of all its vaunted wealth of experience and great leadership, what do we find? We find the government callously indifferent to the plight of the people, particularly those in the low income and pensioned groups, aggravating inflation, increasing the cost of living by taxation, and capitalizing, again by taxation, on the everyday requirements of Canadian families.
This is experienced Liberal leadership in this time of global travail. This is the steadying hand of the experienced Liberal administration upon the national economy. This is the crystal wisdom of the experienced Liberal administration as it counsels individual thrift and saving.
What an inspiring spectacle it is as this experienced Liberal government splurges the taxpayer's dollars on such things as the removal of the federal printing bureau to a seaside site in swimming Hull, as it controls and buys all the goods and all the materials, it requires for defence, but controls and stabilizes the flow and the prices of nothing at all that the public wants. What an inspiring spectacle of experienced leadership when it boasts of effecting a saving of several million dollars in governmental expenditures this past year and yet hands out $65 million on an unexplained basis to the wheat growers of the west.
What a magnificent picture of experienced Liberal leadership it makes as the government calls for more and more production and yet slaps a 20 per cent surcharge on the income tax of the worker who must work harder and longer hours to achieve the production the government deems so necessary. The splendour of that scene grows more dazzling as one looks at agriculture and the leadership that has been afforded in that
80709-'161
Cost of Living
field. Experienced Liberal leadership has brought the dairy industry in all its branches to the verge of ruin-in the field of cheese production and butter production. The policy of this experienced Liberal government might be summarized in a single phrase, a policy of drift and be-I had better not mention that word.
For the pensioners of Canada and for those on fixed incomes the government has no word of comfort. To them during this inflationary period the government, this experienced government, says there is nothing it can do, that they must shift for themselves and eke out whatever existence they can. But I submit that there is something the government could and should do. For so experienced a government surely it would be no great task to establish the margin of profit mark-up permissible on foods and clothing, two great factors in the cost of living index.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member has exceeded his time.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I presume it will not be out of order to discuss some way by which we may have some hope of dealing with the high-cost of living. One thing that is vastly desolating to a person sitting here listening to all the talk we have had thus far is the fact that mot a word whatsoever has been offered as to how the government can raise the money to accomplish the objectives which the hon. gentlemen appear to have in mind. If that is the only function of an opposition, then I must confess that I am amazed that the opposition is such a worthless, helpless affair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speak for yourself.


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly, I shall do so in
a very short time. If we face the situation which confronts us straightforwardly and factually we will realize that there has to be coming into the hands of the government much more money than even now is being contemplated from taxation and other reve-[DOT] nue measures which the government has in mind. What are we going to do about it? It would do me a lot of good to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), with the experts who surround him, over on the government side proposing a budget. We could then see how he would do these things which the government is struggling rather earnestly-I would not exactly say desperately-to cope with. What I am going to suggest is something I have already suggested a great many times in the house, but something which in my judgment offers a real solution to the problem.
I do not wish to refer unduly to my C.C.F. friends, but as far as I can gather

Cost of Living
anything intelligible out of all that they say about financing, they seem to contemplate taxation in addition to what we now have. In other words, we find no evidence of anything but taxation in the minds of hon. members of two opposition parties who attempt to attack this problem. The taxation which these C.C.F. gentlemen appear to contemplate is, in my judgment, a kind of taxation which will discourage the production that we desire so urgently in this country. I think that puts it accurately and simply. I may be quite wrong but I do not think I am. I am trying to put myself in the position of someone who probably might risk a million dollars to establish a plant in an endeavour to produce goods for Canada necessary for the war effort, and who has to contemplate such a threat as C.C.F. ideas seem to pose before any such person in the not too distant future if they ever get into power.
May I bring to the attention of the house once more the question of the possibility of debt-free money created by the state, in accordance with the production of the country and the productive capacity, as a means of obtaining additional revenue which will aid in the financing of the nation's affairs without taking anything away from anybody and without hurting anybody. My general approach to that problem on this occasion is going to be more or less scientific. It is based on a study of financial history over nearly the 'ast two hundred years.
In my judgment there has come into the thinking of men in our day a strange species of fallacious concept with respect to debt-free money created by the state. I believe that if we are going to come through the dangerous times ahead successfully we must remove these fallacies which have come to be lodged so firmly in the minds of so many hon. members of the house and of the people throughout the country.
In order to show that I am not in the most disreputable company in the world when I propose debt-free money, may I quote a passage that appears in the annual report of the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland bank, to the shareholders of the bank as recently as 1936. This passage is to be found in the London Daily Times of January 30, 1936, right here in our library. I invite the leader of the opposition and every other hon. member to consider this quotation with the utmost care as coming from a man who undoubtedly is no crackpot, no matter what anybody tries to say. He said:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central

bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control. We learnt that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused. For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.	,
I do not believe there is a man in the Dominion of Canada who can successfully argue, in the face of that solemn statement by Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, that it is not feasible and intelligent to suggest in this country that we at least create some debt-free money through the finance department.
It will be argued that now is not the time to do it because relatively we have scarcity of production. With the information at my disposal, defective as it possibly may be, I am not prepared to admit that we have a deficiency of production over all in most of the essentials of our standard of living. If we have, then I maintain it is the business of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), or some other responsible man in the government, to explain to us exactly to what degree there is deficiency of production in this country.
May I now turn to another man who T think, will be recognized. I think the leader of the opposition will have to recognize this man. I wish to quote this time Mr. A. F. W. Plumptre, who used to be Professor Plumptre, writing in the Financial Post of October 5, 1940, on the topic of "Putting Over The Next War Loan". He said:
There are some general matters of theory which must be kept in mind in preparing for the next war loan. It must be remembered, primarily and seemingly paradoxically, that the government's object is not to get money but merely to reduce the public's spending. The government can always "get money" because it may, as an alternative to borrowing or even to taxation, create the required funds. This it can easily do nowadays through the leadership of the central bank and the co-operation of the chartered banks. In this way $200 million were created in this fashion last autumn.
I submit that if the opposition are going to be worthy of their salt they will have to ask certain questions and get the answers. One question that needs to be asked and answered is: At what stage of production in a nation is the creation of debt-free money and the circulation thereof justified by the production of that country? In other words, how much production need there be in a

country, or how much money can be in a country in relation to the production, before we are justified in creating money and putting it into circulation?
In my judgment that is one of the pro-foundest questions facing mankind today. What is the use of the leader of the opposition and dozens and dozens of other men in this House of Commons getting up and railing against communism and about the dangers of communism when they never give us the slightest hint of what can be done to improve conditions in Canada to enable us to offset the influence of communism within the country?
May I quote one statement which comes from another man who undoubtedly is worthy of high respect. I refer to Vincent Cartwright Vickers writing in a book called "Economic Tribulation", published in 1941, and which is available in our library. This is what he says:
Any additional supply of money should be issued as a clear asset to the state: so that money will be spent into existence, and not lent into existence.
That will be found on page 75 of his book. There is no doubt as to the meaning of those words. They are clear. Ten year old children can tell what they mean. I ask the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) if he cannot tell what those words mean. If he can tell what they mean, why does he not put in some study on the matter with which this gentleman was dealing?
Who was Vincent Cartwright Vickers? Perhaps hon. members will be interested to learn. We find this information in a note written by his daughter, Wilma Cawdor, and appearing in the front of the book:
Vincent Cartwright Vickers was born on 16th January, 1879, and educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford. He was a deputy lieutenant of the city of London, a director of Vickers, Limited, for twenty-two years, and a director of the London Assurance from which he resigned in January, 1939. In 1910 he was made a governor of the Bank of England, and resigned this appointment in 1919. Later, he became president of the Economic Reform Club and Institute.
He died on 3rd November, 1939, after a long illness during which, against time and with failing strength, he was working and writing on economics.
The book he was seeking to finish was this very book "Economic Tribulation", as being the essence of this man's experience which he was contributing to the well-being of his fellow men. Does not the hon. member for Greenwood imagine this man's words are worth listening to? I am sure he would feel quite honoured if he could attach to his name all the distinguishing features which I have read about this man. So would any member of this house. I do not think the Minister of Finance, with all the jaunty assurance he 80709-161J
Cost of Living
possesses, would dare cross swords with a man having such a reputation without a great deal of very careful preparation.
Well, then, why do we find so many people who just will not pay attention to the words of men like Mr. Vickers, so well informed and' so well able to suggest a means of solving the problems of this generation? This book by Vincent Cartwright Vickers was written in 1939, before the war. Is it to be supposed that he intended his message to be of no value until a long time after the war, or did he intend it to be a valuable contribution during the war and the peace which was to follow?
The trouble is that the moment we make suggestions as to the use of debt-free money like those I have made already, we find people coming out with such words as "inflation". Many of them have not the faintest idea of what constitutes or causes inflation. The fact is that we have an inflation now, probably the worst in our history, after we financed a war with the soundest of sound money according to the most rigid orthodox principles the hon. member for Greenwood or the Department of Finance could imagine. The fact that we have such a terrible inflation now and do not know what to do about it ought to be pretty good evidence that their sound money ideas, according to the doctrines of orthodox finance, may not be quite so sound as they appear.
That is the thing we face. What has caused this inflation? The other day I listened to the leader of the opposition talk about inflation. Some of his remarks the Minister of Finance met with the expression "nonsense". I believe the minister was justified, because I must declare that the leader of the opposition was talking the most simple nonsense I have heard a man talk on inflation in the last fifteen years.


Donald MacInnis: How would the Minister of Finance know he was talking nonsense?


John Horne Blackmore: He knew it that time, anyway. I wish the leader of the opposition were in his place, but he will be able to defend himself on a later occasion, and I shall be here when he does it. The point is this. Is it not a most alarming state of affairs when the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons cannot even tell definitely and clearly what inflation is, what it means, and what causes it?
The other day the Minister of Finance said this inflation was a world phenomenon. Well, every one of the countries involved in this world phenomenon is conducting its affairs under orthodox finance, with which the hon. member for Greenwood is so completely enamoured. How in the world, then, has this inflation been brought about?

Cost of Living
Just to emphasize the truth of what I am saying, when the Bank of Canada was organized we were led to believe this would be a measure to protect us against inflation. Well, we fought a war under the Bank of [DOT]Canada. We have come through the war into the peace under the Bank of Canada. There are corresponding central banks all over the British commonwealth and in other countries, but notwithstanding that fact we have this inflation which is so serious as to alarm the bravest of us in this country. What is the matter? That ought to be enough to warn every member of this house that we just cannot treat these matters too lightly.
On April 19 I put on record a number of questions which were to guide those honestly seeking for truth concerning money, in their studies and thinking. The suggestion was definitely embedded in one of those questions the answer to which-if we would only learn the facts about finance and: not the fancies, with which we are being regaled so frequently by the presidents of banks all over this country1-would probably furnish the solution to many of our problems and show it to be right in our financial system. The longer hon. members study this matter the more they will realize the truth of what I am saying.
But now when debt-free money is mentioned If they do not call out "inflation" they scream "remember Germany", as though what happened in the inflation in Germany had anything on earth to do with debt-free money. They are referring to the German inflation, about which I shall have a little more to say in a few moments.
Those who have been informed by the deputy minister of finance and the men he has gathered around him as his cohorts and supporters will scream "fiat money", as it was used in the days of the French revolution. Their reference, of course, is to assignats, from the like of which they hope heaven will deliver us. A careful study of the assignat experiment will reveal much that can help us even today. The trouble is that the people who speak about that great experiment do not know the facts, and they will not take the trouble to find them. Instead, they permit themselves to be deluded by the deputy minister of finance. He is not here, but he is perfectly free to have his representatives and minions here in the house- and he has quite a number of them-disprove what I say. I challenge the deputy minister of finance and all his department behind him to contradict what I say.
If hon. members do not cry out one of these things, they will say, "Just think of

greenbackery in the United States under Lincoln! Heaven deliver us from that". Well, a careful study of the greenback experiment does not justify anyone in forming such an extravagant adverse conclusion, as I shall indicate shortly.
These four parrot cries, inflation, Germany, assignats and greenbacks, must be disposed of before any progress will be possible in our study of money.
If the hon. members of this house and the people throughout the country are disposed to be imposed upon by these four parrot cries, nothing can be done. But if they are disposed to probe into the problem themselves and get the facts they will not be imposed upon by these four parrot cries. These parrot cries constitute the first hurdle to be scaled before debt-free money proposals will be even listened to. But for any individual with an enlightened mind, free from bias and prejudice, these four parrot cries are easy to dispose of, easy to sweep utterly out of the way. In fact, they constitute no hurdle at all but rather an encouragement to us to probe into the possibilities of debt-free money.
Now, as to inflation; what is inflation? The leader of the opposition the other day evidently had in his mind three definitions of inflation, and they were all wrong, or at [DOT] least they were only right a number of years ago or right in accordance with the propaganda of the banks. It has been said that an increase of money is inflation. In one sense, we grant that is true, but no hon. member of this house will say the word "inflation" as we use it today means an increase in money. Then, it has been said that any undue increase of money that is unaccompanied1 by an increase in products is inflation. Well, that is coming somewhere near it. Another definition is any increase in money which is too great for the gold in the country that backs the money. The realistic definition of inflation has been literally hammered into the heads of everybody in Canada and the United States during two terrible wars as being, any rise in price, no matter what the cause or causes may be. Unless you do have a rise in price, any financial process is not inflation. What the leader of the opposition has got to do is to learn what inflation is, or he cannot discuss intelligently the present inflation, and all those who listen to him will just have their time wasted on this most vital matter. I could say a great deal more about inflation, but I do not think I will at the present time because I am busy with certain other things. I shall come back to inflation by and by,

whenever hon. members, including the leader of the opposition or the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), will question what I am saying.
The important matter before us now is, what part can money play in causing inflation? The answer to that is simply this: if we get into circulation more money than goods, as the hon. member for Greenwood said the other day, "when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods," that is the only justifiable monetary reason, as I think the hon. member for Greenwood will agree, for an increase in price. My question is: is that what has caused the present increase in price? I just raise one illustration, because I do not wish to go into too much detail. In April of 1946 the steel companies in Canada acting with government consent raised the price of steel by $5 per ton. Would the hon. member for Greenwood or the Minister of Finance or any other hon. member in this house say that was caused by too much money in circulation? Would the hon. member for Greenwood or the Minister of Finance or anyone else in the house tell us that you could make the steel companies take $5 off their price by taxing any amount of money away from the people of Canada?
The next thing that occurred, as all hon. members will recall, was that the steel workers struck for a share of that five dollar increase. The result was that the steel workers received an increase in wages, thereby increasing the cost to everyone employing them just as the increase in steel prices increased the cost to everyone using steel in manufacturing his product, directly or indirectly. Will anyone tell us that steel prices would be reduced or that wages would be reduced or that you can bring down the increased cost of living which resulted from those two factors, by a tax? Why, the very thought of it is preposterous, is it not? If it can be found that all the factors which have resulted in the great inflation we are suffering from are the result of incidents similar to that which occurred in the increased price in steel, will somebody tell me how on earth any amount of taxation in this country can reduce the cost of living? It is an absurdity! It is for that reason that I say the first thing we must do is know what caused this inflation; then we can set about seeing whether or not we can remove the causes or offset them. I shall have more to say about this later on.
May I just give a quotation to the house which will tend to establish the truth of what I have just said, that the thing which governs the amount of money which a country can have in circulation is the goods and
Cost of Living
services a country has in circulation or available for use in exchanges which people desire to make of these goods and services. Money is a medium of exchange as all people know. What do you need money as a medium of exchange for? To effect exchanges. When can you effect an exchange? When you have for example apples to trade for potatoes, or barber services to trade for railroad services or railroad services to trade for coal. In other words, the amount of money which you can have in the country depends on the goods and services you have in the country, and the disposition of the people in the country to effect exchanges. Now, the very minute you get that point dearly in your mind as a fundamental, you have to look on money altogether differently. The very first thing you will do if you want to find out whether we can create money and put it into circulation today in Canada will be to ascertain how many exchanges we are able and prepared to make in Canada. How many goods and services have we which we could exchange and have to employ money in the process?
I am going to read a quotation from a valuable little work by Sir Norman Angel] called "Your Money." This little work is in our library. The article was written when the Social Credit government went into power in Alberta. The Financial Post caused it to be written, and the general object of the dear old Financial Post was to scare people away from Social Credit. As a matter of fact, what Sir Norman Angell said was just the thing to show that Social Credit was completely sound in its attitude towards money.. On page 13 members will find the words which I am going to read, so they can read them at their leisure. You will find that I have not taken the quotation from its general context.
Now, it would make no difference to the valu? of Law's money-
By the way, Law's money preceded the assignats by a few generations. Law's money was a really wonderful experiment.
-that it should be "backed" by the resources of the Mississippi valley, or to the French revolutionary money that it should be a mortgage upon the national possessions, if the moneys were issued in too great a quantity in relation to the exchange of goods to be effected. Both of the moneys just mentioned became utterly worthless, although the whole resources of France and the French empire did "stand back of" them. If the quantity had been limited it would not have mattered in the least that nothing stood behind them in the material sense.
How sound those words are. I am sure the member for Greenwood can understand those simple words, too. I shall continue:
So long as they were legal currency, and their quantity was limited, their value would have been maintained.

Cost of Living
Which means that "backing" in the ordinarily accepted sense does not make a bit of difference to the value of the money.
What wrecked them was their excessive quantity.
No member in this house has advocated excessive quantity; certainly no Social Crediter has.
If the effect of putting material wealth "behind" money is to limit the quantity, to cause it to bear some quantitative relation to goods, the device, of course, serves the purpose of limitation. But it is the limitation of quantity which constitutes the guarantee of its value. Ricardo saw this quite clearly when he wrote:
"There is no point more important in issuing paper money than to be fully impressed with the effects that follow from the principle of limitation of quantity. It is not necessary that paper should be payable in specie to secure its value; it is only necessary that its quantity should be regulated."
May I break in here to ask once more: Quantity in relation to what? The exchanges which are to be effected in the country! And where is the man in Canada today who can tell us what is the number of exchanges that can be effected in this wonderful country? And what would be the number of exchanges which could be effected if you could put more money into the hands of consumers? And what would be the number that could be effected in the course of a year if you liberated the productive capacities of this country? These are the matters which in my judgment are matters of great importance and of great promise of hope as we approach the financing of the dangerous days ahead. I continue:
Now this truth, that the value of money depends in the last analysis, not upon the material of which it is made, or upon being "backed" by this or that commodity, but upon its quantity, opens up great possibilities for man.
I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to canvass some of these possibilities before this house this afternoon. I continue:
He is not necessarily in this vital question of money the slave of a circumstance outside his control like the discovery or the failure to make adequate discovery of gold. He can control his money, make it his servant instead of his master, if he can learn the trick, the technique.
And the trick or the technique is learning how to measure or calculate the number of exchanges that can be effected and how to increase the possibility of exchanges and how to cause those exchanges to be made. I submit that just as soon as an effective study of this matter is made by the members of this house, the presidents of banks in this country, the presidents of mortgage companies, and all the other men who think they speak with authority, and are in a position where people listen to them, even if they are telling what is untrue, the better it will be; the important thing for those gentlemen all to do is to begin to examine with the utmost care these pages which I have put on record
IMr. Blackmore.l
of the writings of some of the most reputable financial experts to be found probably in the history of the world, in order to see whether or not something cannot be done to help this country and its neighbours, out of the difficulty in which everybody recognizes we now find ourselves. I have a great many things, which I hope to say regarding this matter.
I wish to go on with some more comments which have an important bearing on the whole thesis that I am attempting to develop.
I wish to refer to the German inflation. If all goes well, before we leave this session I propose to go into detail with regard to the German inflation and to give authentic information with which everyone will have to agree. Was the German inflation caused by debt-free money? I would advise hon. members to read Paul Einzig's book "World Finance Since 1914"; he is a gentleman who has in all probability known and told the truth; this is what he said. I am reading from page 47 of Paul Einzig's book that we find in our library:
In the case of Germany, inflation was forced upon the government by excessive reparation demands.
Did the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) ever hear of that? I will wager that he never did. I will wager that you could not get Dr. W. C. Clark, the deputy minister of finance, to acknowledge that unless you pounded it into his head. But there is the fact; and in due time, Mr. Speaker, if all goes well, and if the members of the house will permit me to do so, I will adduce evidence to support everything that Paul Einzig has said here. Meanwhile, may I point out these facts concerning the German inflation: Every mark was borrowed from German banks. Do hon. members get that? Every mark that made up the German inflation was borrowed from German banks in most acceptable orthodox fashion, to pay interest on Germany's war debts. Would the Minister of Finance or the hon. member for Greenwood object to that? That was good, sound, orthodox financing. Why did it cause inflation in Germany? Germany owed 147 billion gold marks internally at the close of the war, of which 58 billion was floating debt and 89 billion was funded debt. Would the hon. member for Greenwood advocate that Germany should have repudiated those debts? Or would the Minister of Finance have argued that Germany should have repudiated those debts? I do not think so. Would Dr. W. C. Clark have advocated such a thing? I do not think so. Then the question those gentlemen will have

to answer is:	How in the world could
Germany have managed matters in those times?
To make matters worse for Germany, this also happened:	The London conference
caused Germans to pay one billion gold marks in August, 1921; 362 million marks in March, 1922; and 254 million marks in August, 1922, to Belgium, a total of 1,622 million marks. I refer hon. members to Sir Norman Angell's "The Story of Money", page 345.
If you want the genuine cause of the German inflation, there is part of it-but just a part of it. At a later time, when I get an opportunity to do so, I will go into detail on the German inflation and I will quote authorities that no man in this house can question or will attempt to question. For men like bankers or anyone else in this country to meet the proposal to issue debt-free money with the cry "Germany" is for them to manifest ignorance, stupidity or downright hypocrisy; and I imagine that all three participate.
May we now turn for a few moments to the assignats experiment, the French republic's state-created, debt-free money? What caused the disastrous rise in price or the fall in the value of the assignat? Here are the general disadvantages under which the assignat functioned:	The thing that was
behind the assignat was a parcel of land, something like a quarter-section of land only smaller. How long would Canadian money maintain its value today if it had only a parcel of land behind it? That was what was behind the assignat unit of money. The word "assignat" means an assignment of land. Then every assignat was at least about $10 in value-$10 to $20. How long would Canadian money continue to keep up its value if the only denominations were $10 and $20 bills, and if there were no $5, $2 or $1 with which to make change? Then there was an unstable government which dared not tax. The government which issued the assignats was a revolutionary government which had just recently established itself and was not sufficiently stable in its position to enable it to tax. What would happen to Canadian money under conditions like that? And there was a disruption of industry at that time due to civil war which had been very costly. Then again France was under the blockade of Britain at that time, and British blockades in those days were pretty airtight; so that they could not get the goods imports which they had been used to. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the French people in France were fighting wars on all fronts. May I read a statement from "Monarchy or Money Power" by R. McNair Wilson,
Cost of Living
in which he is discussing the assignats. Here is a statement which the hon. member for Greenwood and the Minister of Finance, busy as these gentlemen are, will have time to read. Here it is:
The French had financed fourteen armies on their paper money-
So evidently it had not been worthless all the time. I continue:
Why should not other nations do the same? Consequently, as has been seen, the money power in every country of Europe exerted its utmost efforts to discredit the French paper money. Success was achieved by frightening the producers of food so that they refused to part with their bread and meat in exchange for assignats, which consequently lost all their value. This is the method invariably made use of to "crash" a paper currency.
Who are behind all the propaganda that is trying to scare us away from using debt-free money? The money power presumably. Who are behind all those banks and trusts that issue their specious talks? The money power no doubt. How many men in the department of the Minister of Finance are under the control of the money power?


Douglas Charles Abbott: None.


John Horne Blackmore: Well I should like the
minister to prove that. We will probably find out by this simple little rule: By their fruits ye shall know them. And the fruits of the Department of Finance during the last fifteen years certainly have not indicated that they were free agents to do for Canada what they ought to have done. Just as an example, in 1935 when we Social Creditors first came here, when Canada's warehouses were literally bulging with food and her productive plant was probably only 70 or 75 per cent active, and over a million and a quarter men were unemployed, all of which were means of producing more goods than we produced, we should have had debt-free money. The Minister of Finance told us it would cause inflation. Well, in the light of what has happened since, was he not foolish? Who do you suppose told him that it would cause inflation, if it was not the deputy minister of finance, and who do you suppose deluded him? Is it to be imagined that a man, such as the deputy minister of finance, with the training that he has had, would not have had knowledge and sense enough to know that the creation, we will say, of $300 million, $400 million or $500 million of money in Canada, and putting it into circulation in 1934 and 1935, would have been beneficial completely and could not have caused inflation, when only just a few years later we had hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars liberated in this country, billions of them in fact, and they did not cause inflation. We held them all under control until under the

Cost of Living
insistence of the foolish remarks of the Conservatives we lessened control in 1946.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


John Horne Blackmore: In the light of all these
facts let us consider the possibility of debt-free money in this country as a means of solving or attempting to solve our difficulties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall have more to say,
Mr. Speaker, the next time that I get a chance.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Speaker, would you call
it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. members would
like to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to come into this debate as early as this, but as there is a possibility that it may not last any more than two or three days longer I felt that I should say something, coming as I do from the province that was described this afternoon by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir)-I may be a little wrong in the way I got his description-as the baby sitter province. It may be the baby sitter province, but it has also been described in such terms as the baby bonus province. The promotion to baby sitter province is rather pleasing to hear. The hon. member may have said baby sister province; I am not sure of that.


Mr. Sinnotl:: Oh, yes you are.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You should know that you
are better able to answer it. To me the subject is of such paramount importance, not only to this baby sitter, baby sister, baby bonus, bag of bones province that it may be if this present inflation continues, but to all Canada. Therefore I need no excuse for intervening in this debate for a short time.
T am not going to speak as eloquently as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), nor am I going to try to become as involved as the hon. member became, and here I mean no disrespect, in trying to explain what inflation is. All I am going to do is to add my small voice to what has been said before so well by so many hon. members, especially those on this side of the house. Even though we have not heard it from hon.

members on the other side because they would not like to talk like this, in their heart of hearts I am sure they are bound to agree with all that has been said about the cost of living in Canada. If they are honest, as all hon. members are, they are certainly going to agree that there has been a tremendous increase in the cost of living in Canada.
The hon. member for Lethbridge asked: What is inflation? The hon. member said that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) could not define inflation and then he (the hon. member for Lethbridge) went on to show in various ways just what inflation was. Whether it is right or wrong, to me inflation means that there is more money coming out of my right-hand pocket, to use the vernacular, to pay for the ordinary things of life, the ordinary eating and the ordinary clothing of the people of Canada than there should be. That to me is inflation.
If we have to pay more for what formerly we used to get for cheaper prices, that is inflation. That may not be very descriptive of the real meaning of inflation, but if a great majority of the people of Canada feel that they should not have to pay as much to live in Canada as they have to today, then they must ask what is the cause of that. The cause of that appears to me to be an artificial raising of prices. How those prices were raised is beyond the ordinary mathematics that I know. I cannot possibly give a reason for it, but I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who is a very clever person, who is a very charming person, who is very well versed in these matters, will at some time during this debate come in and explain to hon. members of this house why this situation exists and why the government has done nothing about it. It is strictly a job for the government of this country. Whether we like it or do not like it, the only power in this country to take steps to control what everybody realizes, what everybody appreciates and what everybody is worried about, that is the cost of living all over this country, is the government.
It is all very well to say that the people who make good money need not be worried, that they are not kicking very much; but they have been taxed plenty. But what about these many thousands of people in this country today who must live on fixed incomes? I mean those people in receipt of pensions that were fixed when living was not as it is today; I mean people like those who are retired from the civil service, people who are retired from private companies, people who are retired from public companies.

There are thousands of people of that type whose pensions were fixed back four, five or maybe ten or fifteen years ago.
These people are receiving the same amount of money today as they were when their pensions were fixed. What becomes of these people? They get no relief in the income tax. Comparatively few of them need relief because comparatively few are in the brackets where income tax applies. But there are still quite a large number who have to pay the increased income taxes and who are still on these fixed pensions. It is those particular cases that I refer to now. What is to become of them? What is to become of the man or the woman in the lower income tax brackets, who does not pay any worthwhile tax? What is he or she to do about meeting the higher cost of living?
That is one problem that is absolutely right up the street of this government. Hon. members opposite know that. Let me say to them I am not speaking words of wisdom about it-I refer to war veterans who are receiving pensions and teachers who are on pension. What is to become of these people? Are we to say to them that this is a war effort and they have to put up with it? But how are they to live? It is all very well for hon. members to say that "it better be live horse till you get grass", but after all, these are human beings and somehow they must live. What is the government doing about it? I have not followed all the past debates. As some hon. members know, I have not been here all the time, and because of the rather irregular mail service we have in my province Hansard has not been delivered as regularly as it might be, and as it has been in other provinces. For that reason I may not have read everything that every hon. member has said, but from what I have read and from the newspapers I have followed1, it appears that the cost of living is exercising the minds of all the people of Canada, and indeed of all members of the House of Commons.
Whatever parties we belong to, whether we are on this side of the house or the other, if hon. members want to really speak their minds, one thing on which they have to be in common accord is the question of trying to curb what is happening in Canada today. That is why I call again upon the Minister of Finance, and call on him very deliberately, because it is his job, because he is probably closer to the whole situation than any other member, to speak on behalf of the government and say whether anything is going to be done, and if not, why not. Something definitely must be done. I do not suppose we can rouse the government from their lethargy 80709-162
Cost of Living
with respect to this matter. I do not know whether it is lethargy. They feel they have an obligation but they definitely do not feel that they should discharge it at this time, or if they feel they should discharge it there may be many reasons why they will not discharge it. I still say it is for the government to say why that is so. We have had excuses that if they control prices labour will not be satisfied, that labour is not going to play the game, that labour will demand an increase in wages.
That is quite true, Mr. Speaker. Labour is today, and justifiably so, demanding increases all along the line, and who blames them? Who blames the men of the professions today for asking for increased fees? Who blames anybody who is earning money today for asking for an increased amount? They must ask for an increased amount if they wish to live, and that also applies to our fishermen in Newfoundland. It applies to the apple growers of Nova Scotia, the farmers of Ontario and Quebec and the lumbermen all over the country. The government says: We are not going to control prices because if we do labour is not going to agree. To my mind that is a fallacy. I do not know too much about labour although I have been associated with labouring men in various capacities for some years, and again I am only speaking of labour in my own province.
So far as I am concerned, in talking with labour people in Newfoundland and up here -and when I say "up here" I mean the mainland of Canada apart from the island province of Newfoundland-I find that labour is not unreasonable, that labour is prepared to hold the line, provided prices are stabilized. You cannot blame them. How can you expect a man to go out and try to earn his living today, come back with his money at the end of his day, week, month, or whatever it is, and have to pay the greatly increased prices prevailing in this country today? The hon. member for Lethbridge made some remarks this afternoon to the effect that my leader did not know what inflation meant. As I said earlier, I know very little about it either, but there are certain figures that were given to me over the dinner hour that I should like to quote.
These figures have reference to Ottawa only. I am not going to quote too many of them but they are all the prices of essential food products in Ottawa today and as they were on the first of January of the present year. On the first of January butter cost 69 cents per pound, and today it costs 80 cents per pound. On January 1 eggs were 55 cents a dozen and today they are 69 cents a dozen. I wish we could buy them

Cost of Living
in Newfoundland at even that increased price. Milk rose three cents a quart to 19 cents a quart. Flour was quoted to me as having risen 4 cents for a 7-pound bag to 49 cents. The increase in a loaf of bread has been two cents. Lard has risen from 29 cents to 35 cents a pound; Canadian cheese from 49 cents to 59 cents a pound; tea from $1.15 a pound to $1.18; coffee from $1.08 to $1.18 a pound. Sausages have increased 14 cents per pound. Pork chops have increased 6 cents per pound, and the increase on hamburg has been 20 per cent.
I am not going any further into that list. I think these figures exemplify very well the great increase in the cost of living right in Ottawa. How these increases have been spread all through the country is very easy for hon. members from the various ridings to apportion. Naturally in my province the figures are entirely out of line. The original cost was greater and the proportionate increase has been greater. It may be that my leader does not know what inflation is in Canada, and possibly I do not know what it is, but the hon. member for Lethbridge will have to give other examples for me to be able to understand him. I do not mean any disrespect, but my idea of inflation, as I said before, is merely a rise in the cost of all things from what they were to what they are. That is inflation so far as I know.
I do not plan to be too long, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure other hon. members are vitally interested for themselves and for their constituents and will want to talk long and seriously on this matter. However, I want to reiterate something that has been said before. I am sure it has been said before because it stands to reason, because it is true. The other evil we have in the world today, apart from the rising cost of living, the other big matter that is exercising the minds of people all over the world, is the threat of communism. Like it or lump it, Mr. Speaker, whatever we say or whatever we do, communism flourishes in those countries where what is happening here now has happened before, where the savings of the people have been wiped out overnight, where the moneys that people tried to put away for their old age or for future illness went, as they are beginning to go here in Canada. Such countries were being prepared for communism. Like you, Mr. Speaker, and all other hon. members I do not want to see communism come in here. Quite recently an approximate figure was given us of the number of communists in Canada. I am not going to mention it, because I would be speaking only from memory and I do not want to do that; but we all realize it is a

very serious problem, and we all appreciate that communism is nurtured by conditions such as those now existing in Canada.
As I have said, the people of Canada expect this government to tell us why they will not impose controls. They say they will not, but they do not tell us why. The Minister of Finance must explain that; he must show the people why it is not necessary to have price controls at this time. So far I have heard no explanation. I do not suggest that I am a particularly bright person but I am reasonably intelligent, and as yet I have not heard nor have I read in Hansard any explanation by the government as to why controls should not be imposed. And that task belongs to the government. It is not the job of the official opposition or of any other party in this house to explain why that should not be done. We all have our ideas on the course that ought to be followed. I am not going to inflict mine upon hon. members, but it is up to the government to give us a full explanation. The people of Canada are the jury, and they can come to their own decision in the matter.
For a few moments I should like to go back to my own province and detail the situation as I have seen it during the past few weeks. It is quite true that a majority of the working people in my province, chiefly fishermen, do not pay income tax. That is so for the very obvious reason- that they do not earn sufficient money to become liable to the tax. But they certainly have to pay through the nose because of the rising cost of living. What is the answer? I came into this house with the other members from Newfoundland with the idea that we would do the best we could for what has been described as the youngest sister province. The bill of goods was sold to us this way in Newfoundland that if we came into confederation with Canada we would have a lower cost of living. Certainly that has not been the case. Today the cost of living in Newfoundland i-s higher than ever before. Of course I realize that the cost of living has gone up in the rest of Canada as well; but if you tried to tell the people of Newfoundland that they are living more cheaply than ever before they would not understand you.
By and large the economy of our newest province is based on fish. I hope I will still be in order if I discuss this matter very briefly, because it is part of this debate and part of the amendment proposed by my leader. The fishermen do not have to pay income tax, but unless the fishermen earn money they do not eat. If they do not catch fish -and sell it, they do -not eat. So if our newest province is to exist at all, we must

have assistance in connection with our fisheries; we must have a floor price tor fish in Newfoundland. Whatever else the government may or may not do, it must do that. I am not going to revive other debates; I am not going to talk about the $65 million that was paid in connection with wheat. I am only going to ask that some small amount be set aside to provide a floor price for Newfoundland fish for this year. At the present time whole settlements in my province say they are not going to fish because they cannot get an undertaking that they will be able to sell their catch at a fair price. What is the good of talking to these people about the cost of living? They cannot even afford to buy the ordinary necessities of life if they cannot sell their fish at a fair price.
We have been told that we were never better off than we are today; that when we came into confederation we had $42 million, and that this was a lot of money, more than we ever had before in our lives. That is quite true, but what is happening now? By the terms of union we are not permitted to use that money to subsidize the fisheries. So even if the provincial government had the money-which they have not, because they have spent it-they would not be able to use it to give the fishermen what they want, that is the promise of a floor price so they may go fishing again.
I am not trying to make any particular plea for Newfoundland as such; I am speaking for all Canada, but instinctively you speak of the only place you really know. That is why I am using Newfoundland as an illustration. This is going to be a very bad year for Canada's youngest province unless something is done about the price of fish. There are members in this house who know much more about it than I do, and I hope they will say the same thing I am saying, because after all they have just as much an obligation to the people of Newfoundland as I have. You know, the youngest sister always needs a little more consideration than the older members of the family. So I hope hon. members opposite and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who has always taken a deep interest in the new province, will bear these things in mind and see to it that whatever the economic situation this newest province is given a chance to live. We are not asking for money down there; all we want is a chance to sell our fish, a chance to live. That is all we ask. Perhaps I may be pardoned for again referring to Newfoundland, but I am worried about the financial position of that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking of
80709-162J
Cost of Living
floor prices for fish, but I would ask him now to confine his remarks to the motion before the house.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You have been more than generous, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate it. I will say no more on that matter at the moment but will let it speak for itself; and I thank you very much for your consideration. So, Mr. Speaker, all I want to say in winding up this matter is this. Like all Canadians, I am extremely worried about this spiralling cost of living. I do not care what any member in this house says today, I do not care what any member of the government says today, controls of some sort have to be instituted; otherwise the people of this country have to accept a much lower standard of living than that to which they are entitled. It is all very well to talk about being unable to do this, but still it should be tried. To me, this inflation is like a balloon. If you like, it is comparable to the Hindenburg which some years ago was filled with helium gas.


An hon. Member:: No, hydrogen gas.


Gordon Francis Higgins: All right, hydrogen gas. It was an inflammable gas.


An hon. Member:: House of Commons gas.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Perhaps it was House of Commons gas, which is an inflammable gas. Whatever the kind of gas with which it was filled-this cost of living gas, whatever it is, is no joke. I say this as I close, that this balloon that has been inflated is getting more inflated every day, and unless something is done to curb this inflation, then we shall have what happened to the Hindenburg as an example: it will blow up. Because of an accident but a preventable one. Then, what will happen to all of Canada? I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance had better explain what is going to happen when and if that balloon blows up.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to add my voice to those who are taking part in this debate. I want to assure you that I support this motion in connection with rising prices. I am not going to cover the ground that has been already covered, only I want to inform the government that the constituency of Selkirk is suffering from high prices the same as every other constituency. Prices have now become so high that it is practically impossible for these people to maintain the standard of living that they had some time ago. It is going to be a black mark against Canada if we have to lower our standard of living. People who are receiving pensions today, not only old age pensioners, but those who purchased annuities so that they would have

Cost of Living
enough to live on during the eventide of their life, are being tremendously hard pressed. I could go over this ground again, but the members in my group and the members of the groups on each side of me have already pointed out these things.
It has been said that high prices are caused by the producer getting too much. I do not agree with that. Beef prices have been blamed for this high cost of living. It has been said that the sending of our cattle to the United States is the cause of high cattle prices. We have the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at page 1759 of Hansard of April 9:
That is the only practical way I know of of preventing the price of beef in Canada from following the price in the United States.
I have been in the United States recently and I find that prices there are much lower than ours. I made a study of it. I went to different places in New York and other cities and I found that beef and pork prices are lower than ours.
I believe the Winnipeg Tribune, in an -editorial on March 6, 1951, hit the nail on the head. I am going to quote from that editorial which is headed "Those American Prices". It reads as follows:
For many years it has been accepted as an axiom by Canadians that the cost of living in the United States is higher than in the dominion. One of the reasons advanced for the current upsurge in prices by Ottawa spokesmen is that living costs here are simply following those of the United States. Few seem to have questioned these assertions.
Times have changed. Those familiar with prices of staple foodstuffs in retail stores south of the border claim that living costs in Canada, as far as many items of food are concerned, are substantially higher than in the U.S.
The following are prices advertised on March 1 for food items of comparable quality and quantities picked at random in Minneapolis and Winnipeg retail stores:
Commodity	Minneapolis Winnipeg
Sugar, 10 lbs	
$1.01	$1.40T-bone steak, lb	79	.89Soap (large size) 3	for	33	.37
Flour-
25-lb. bag	 2.15	...
24-lb. bag		1.65
Picnic hams, lb	43	.55Pork Tenderloin, lb	70	1.05Milk, 2 qts	33	.34
Apples, Delicious-
5 U?s	49	...
4 lbs		.50
Granulated soap, large	size ....	.34	.42Pork sausage	49	.49Canned milk, 2 tins	29	.32Canned applesauce	10	.15Margarine	41	.45Brown sugar, 2 lbs	25	.31Eggs, A large	52	.55Baby foods, 3 tins	26	.28Vegetable shortening,	3 lbs. ...	1.17	1.45Grapefruit, half dozen	25	.46

The items in the above list are either standard brands distributed both in Canada and the U.S., or items of comparable grade and size. It was to be expected that fresh fruit and vegetables in the U.S. at this time of year should sell more cheaply than in Canada. But there is no apparent reason why many cuts of meat should cost more on this side of the line. Nor is there any apparent reason why margarine and shortening should be dearer here. Nor is there any obvious reason why eggs, milk and soap should be cheaper in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg.
For many years Canadians accepted as inevitable that motor cars, radios, electrical appliances and all sorts of gadgets were cheaper south of the line. They consoled themselves with the thought that it cost the people in the U.S. much more for food. Apparently Canadians are now deprived even of this consolation, if the above price comparisons mean anything.
Those who claim that Canadian food prices are simply following United States prices in the current upsurge are apparently talking through their hats- hats that would probably cost less in the States.
I believe that proves the fallacy of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, that if the consumer wants to have cheaper beef we cannot sell our cattle to the United States. We are selling our cattle to the United States, and beef is cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada. The editorial I have just read proves that, and I have been to the United States and have seen it for myself. I have checked it. I made a special trip on Saturday afternoon to find out just what was going on. The producer is receiving more, but the price to the consumer is lower, as I was able to see when I was there.
I believe that the middleman or the wholesaler, the packer and the people in the middle are afraid that price controls are going to be established and they are making sure that the price is high enough when price control comes on. I am also of the opinion that the people who believe in the private enterprise system, as we have it today, are taking more than the traffic will bear; they are too greedy. For instance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) put a three-cent tax on a packet of cigarettes; the next day there was four cents added to the price. There is no reason for that procedure so far as I can see. That sort of thing is going on right along the line. I could quote a few more examples where the tax has been put on and then just a little bit more has been added to the tax.
The old days of competition have gone completely, because everything is now run by monopolies. For instance, as to the packing industry in Canada, I think there are only about four firms which control the whole thing. If you go back through the records of the House of Commons you will find described how they meet in the morning in order to agree on the price they will pay that day. If that sort of thing goes on, the days of

competition are gone forever. You have monopolies and they are now so powerful that I sometimes think they have quite a strong influence on the government.
I have here in my hand an editorial which appears in tonight's Journal. Even the Ottawa people are seeing the thing as I see it. The editorial is headed "Prices Here and in the U.S.", and it reads as follows:
Washington, dispatches tell of further increases in U.S. prices of goods and farm products. The wholesale index now stands at 183-6 per cent of the 1926 average.
But let none of us have belief that living costs in the U.S. are higher than in Canada. U.S. rentals and food prices are higher, but not a whole list of other things that enter into the living costs of an average family. Textiles, clothing of all kinds, cottons, dresses for women, shirts for men, rayons and silks, household appliances, refrigerators, radios, motorcars-all these things are cheaper in the U.S. than they are in Canada. Indeed, since the application of Mr. Abbott's recent taxes, refrigerators, stoves


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should discuss the budget at this time.


William Scottie Bryce: If I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, I will stop. But I am only quoting. I am not discussing the thing. I am giving the other-fellow's opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should do that at this time.


William Scottie Bryce: As I have said already, I do not want to do anything that is wrong. But I have not a university education as have some of these other hon. fellows, and I am trying to show that the cost of living in Canada is higher than it is in the United States, whereas we are being told different by the government. I have only three more lines to read, Mr. Speaker. May I read them?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose I may give the hon. member that latitude; but the point I wanted to make was that we should not discuss the budget resolutions at this time, nor refer to them. Under the circumstances, however, I will allow the hon. member to quote the three more lines.


William Scottie Bryce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your kindness. The editorial continues:
-and other so-called "luxuries" are considerably cheaper in- the U.S.
We hear much from time to time of the need of protecting Canada against U.S. inflation. A windowshopping tour in any big U.S. city hardly bears out such need; nor does a glance at the advertisements in U.S. newspapers.
I was bringing this editorial to the attention of the house in order to back up what I myself had seen. I do not think I need to say any more, Mr. Speaker. I have made my point, or at least I have tried to do so. Prices are
Cost of Living
still rising and the government do not do anything about it. The living standards of the people here and elsewhere are going down. That is a disgraceful thing to happen in this fine country of ours. I am going to appeal to the government to check these rising prices or to do something about the matter. In 1949 the people sent this government back to power, and the least the government can do is to protect them against high prices.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents if I did not say a few words in this; debate, inasmuch as I represent a part of this country in which there is perhaps a higher percentage than elsewhere of people who suffer from any increase in the cost of living. To Vancouver island many people from the prairies and from other parts of Canada move during their ageing years; hence I find that in the outskirts of Victoria and on the southern portion of the island there is a high percentage of retired civil servants, retired railway workers, pensioners from the services -people who have accumulated small savings and have hoped to live on those in the milder climate. It is that class of people who suffer more than any other class when the cost of living goes up.
I do not feel that the situation is something which can be remedied overnight. The world situation as it developed1 after world war II does not permit of any easy or clear-cut solution. We are apt to be living in an age in which crisis and tension will follow one after the other, an age of great difficulty, an age in which sacrifices will have to be made by people in every walk of life. But if the Canadian people and those of the other free nations of this world are prepared to live up to the demands of this particular age, I believe that we may be able to avoid another era of blood, sweat and tears. If that be so, then I think we must look at the attitude of the people of Canada as a whole, not necessarily the attitude of those people I represent. Strange as it may seem and, perhaps, strange as it may be for an opposition member to say,
I do not believe that the majority of people in this country are concerned about the high cost of living. A great many of them are enjoying high wages. They are living right up to all their earnings. I would say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that it is not the high cost of living that the people are concerned about but rather the cost of high living. Until we can bring it home to the people of this country that they have to go back to the days in which the virtues of thrift and saving were recognized as virtues and not something to sneer at as belonging to an old era, we are never going to get a

Cost of Living
government that leads. The government are not leaders today. Any government are a flock of sheep. They follow what the people want them to do and they will say to themselves: Well, the people are not asking us to reduce the high cost of living; they are asking us to reduce the cost of high living. So you find that the government quite complacently goes along and says: We do not have to do anything about this. This is the situation which exists in the country. We do not mind very much about that small 10 per cent of the people who are really suffering from the high cost of living. And so perhaps it is wrong, or perhaps it is unusual, shall I say, for a member of the opposition not to take full advantage of pointing out all the errors of the government. I do point the finger of accusation to the people of Canada today and say that they are not really facing up to the situation, and that as soon as there is a demand from the majority of the people of Canada to reduce the high cost of living, and not the cost of high living, then the government, whatever party may be in power, will accede to their wishes and something will be done.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Some hon. members I presume are groaning with pain. I am sorry-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Pleased anticipation.


Ernest George Hansell: -if I have to inflict more pain upon them, but if prices do not come down pretty soon we shall all be in pain.
The reason I rise at this moment, Mr. Speaker, as I fancied the debate was going to close, was that I did not see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) rising to his feet, and I do not believe that this debate should close until we have an answer from the minister. Surely, when an amendment of this kind is sponsored by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew), and a debate has gone on for several days on a topic of such paramount importance in Canada today, we have reason to ask the Minister of Finance to answer the various charges and speeches that have been made on the amendment.
I get a little bit tired of this matter of coming down here and assuming that we are simply a debating society desiring to put things on Hansard, hoping that in the process we might perhaps get a little publicity one way or another, and pit one party against another. What we have in Canada today is a situation which is serious. That situation is explained in the amendment, and I do not believe that we should let this debate close without the minister satisfactorily giving 
us an answer, and an answer that is something more than an ethereal something that simply glosses the thing over or passes the buck. My leader whispers in my ear that the minister should not treat this matter with a conspiracy of silence.
We have a right to know. That is what we are here for. I do not believe that we should vote a dollar to the government until they satisfy us on these things. We know we are not voting money under the present motion, but there is more than one way of getting the minister to give an account of himself. We are trying to get into supply, and if he wants the money he had better come through with the answer. That is about the way in which we have to treat these things.
Surely the man who is responsible for the financial policy of this country, which policy results in the rising or lowering of prices, the amount of money that is in circulation, whether production is high or low, is the Minister of Finance. He is more or less directly responsible for that situation. He has his advisers. There is no reason in the world why he cannot give us an answer. It is not satisfactory to say that his answer is contained in his budget speech, because it is not there. Since he has his advisers, there is no reason why he could not say to this house: Well, now, if you really want to get down to brass tacks, if you really want to know the reason, we shall ask the banking and commerce committee to sit, and you can call in my advisers and they will tell you the reason for the high cost of living. That is, if the minister is not willing to stand before that committee himself, because somebody is behind the scenes pulling the wires, somebody is responsible for financial policy, and I think we should know who it is, and why they have permitted those things to happen.
Surely the minister must realize that he has an obligation to this parliament and to the people of Canada. I know what he says to us. Generally speaking it is: Well we are just one country of many and the situation is a sort of world-wide thing; just as though that excuses us. He reminds me of a song that was quite popular when I was a boy. I have forgotten how it goes, but I used to whistle it. The first line was: "Everybody's doing it."


Gordon Knapman Fraser: "Everybody's doing it now."


Ernest George Hansell: Everybody's doing it now.
Well, simply because everybody is doing it, does not mean that it is right. Because every other nation gets itself into this same sort of mess it does not mean that we have to get ourselves into the same mess.


John Horne Blackmore: Or a worse one.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) spoke this afternoon, and he put some mighty interesting things on the record. There is no reason why the minister should not come through now and explain his position in the light of the authorities that the hon. member for Lethbridge quoted.
We live in an amazing country. We have a population of 12 million people.


Mr. Cruickshank:: It is 14 million.


Ernest George Hansell: We have a vast rich land and a great agricultural industry. There is no reason in the world why we should have to question whether or not we are going to eat tomorrow. I am not painting the picture too black. That is exactly what some people will be asking themselves if prices go any higher.
During the depression days we had a situation of unemployment. The old bogey was trotted out: Well, it is a universal problem. Just because other countries had an unemployment problem was no reason why we should have had it. But what happened? In those days goods were in abundance but people had no money in their pockets and the financial policy of the government was not able to take care of the situation. What happens today? Today people are employed; they have a bit of money, but prices have sky-rocketed so high that their money cannot reach the prices. So you have the same effect today that you had in the depression days. Surely the minister cannot absolve himself from responsibility in connection with those two features, depression in those days, goods but no money to buy them, and then today with money in our pockets we find prices so high that we cannot buy goods anyway. His financial policy is responsible for it. They did not have a policy in the unemployment days, and they do not have a policy now in the days of high prices.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) interjected to say that he did not have the university education that some other people have. Let me tell him that it does not take a university education to understand that you cannot buy meat at a dollar per pound with 75 cents in your pocket. As a matter of fact you might say that it is the university boys who have got us into this economic teeter-totter. Perhaps if they had a few people on the job who were realists and did not get mixed up with all these intricate things we would not be in the mess we are. We have the modern intellectual: more brains, less wisdom; more education, less knowledge.
Cost of Living
That is the situation. Quite often people come along to me and ask me whether I am a Social Crediter. I tell them I am and proud of it. Then they tell me that they cannot understand Social Credit. The first thing I poke back at them is something concerning our present monetary policy and I find that it is the present money system they do not understand. The things behind the scenes are so complicated that people are left in darkness concerning that very vital subject.
I am going to sit down, but first I say to every hon. member: We should demand of the minister that he give us an answer as to why his policy has permitted prices to rise and as to why his policy is not able to take care of the high cost of living. His responsibility demands that he tell this house why. Is the minister going to reply or is he going to sit still and indicate to the house that he has no reply?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take only a very few minutes. As I said the other day, unlike some hon. members of the house I try to avoid repetition. It is three or four weeks since on the invitation of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I expressed in language as clear and succinct as I could my views as to what caused the current inflation and what the Canadian government was doing about it. I do not propose to repeat those views tonight. During my budget speech I spent considerable time reviewing again some of the causes of the current world-wide inflation which, as I indicated then, so far as Canada was concerned was largely an imported inflation.
I told what the Canadian government was doing in order to counteract these inflationary forces on the domestic scene. I appreciate greatly the deep faith displayed by some members of the house that the Minister of Finance or any minister of finance can cure inflationary forces which exist in Canada or in the rest of the world, but I want to assure them that their faith is completely misplaced if they think that I or any other person in my position or any government can cure those forces.
I was particularly interested this evening in hearing the brief but excellent speech by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). With almost all that he said I am in complete agreement. I could not agree with his criticism of the government, but I was pretty well in agreement with the rest of the speech. One of the main reasons why we are having inflationary forces in Canada today is that every highly organized pressure group in the country is trying to make sure that rising prices are not going to affect them.

Cost of Living
On another occasion I made the statement that inflation is something more than an arithmetical fact, that it is a question of psychology and behaviour. Every time the costs of things rise, the highly organized groups in the country attempt to get higher wages or higher prices for their own particular products. They simply add fuel to the fires which we are trying to put out. I was particularly struck by what the hon. member for Nanaimo said. We cannot expect to superimpose a war effort of the dimensions we are now contemplating on an economy which is already fairly well employed without one of two things happening: either we increase our production or we diminish our standard of living.
It may be that some of the highly organized groups in the country will be able to maintain their position, but it will be at the expense of the people to whom my hon. friend referred, the pensioners, the people living on fixed income, people who are not highly organized. As I said the other day when speaking on the budget, the fundamental cure for this thing is for everybody to work harder and longer. We must do that if we want to maintain our present standard of living.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, there are several things which I should like to say about the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Before doing that I should like to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that when he is congratulated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and applauded by Liberals he should beware.
The minister has asserted, not only tonight but upon previous occasions, that the inflationary trend within our country is a worldwide phenomenon, that it is imported. I am certain that if we were to go to the United States certain officials connected with that government would give the same answer, and the same would be true elsewhere. If that is to be accepted as a justifiable explanation for the conditions which prevail, then I ask: Is there any hope of solving it, or where is the start to be made?
Earlier this evening the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) gave his definition of inflation. I have no particular argument with his definition. All the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) did this afternoon was to elaborate upon certain fallacious beliefs which some persons harbour

in connection with inflation. He also elaborated upon certain very real conditions which lead to inflationary trends within a country.
This is the thing which struck me most' forcibly tonight. This amendment was moved on April 9. We have had the budget and prices are still going up day by day andi hour by hour. The government has made a substantial contribution toward that condition. True, we pick up our newspapers and find demands being made for higher wages. Why? When a man reaches a condition where his wife cannot pay the accumulated accounts at the end of the month then in the absence of a government policy to meet the situation he has no alternative but to demand more in the way of income. We pick up the newspapers and we find the railways, for example, asking for another 14 per cent increase in freight rates, something that could be wholly disastrous to the economy of western Canada and many of those persons in western Canada who today are confronted with the high cost of living in all its hideousness.
We have not only had the budget but I would say to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) if he were here that we have also seen them fire General MacArthur, and that has not stopped the cost of living going up. Everything that has been done since this amendment was moved has had a tendency to force prices up and up and up. The pensioner, the person who finds it utterly impossible to meet the cost of the essentials of life today, is asking where it is going to stop. The same is true of low paid employees, and I dare say there is probably a larger percentage of them in the employ of the government than in the employ of any individual or groups of individuals. Why, Mr. Speaker, we even have to authorize some of them to go and baby sit in their spare hours in order to make enough money to meet the cost of living.
We have the widowed mothers, many of them trying to raise young families on $30, $40, $50 or $60 a month. We have our veterans of world war I and world war II trying to struggle along on pensions and war veterans allowances and their widows on allowances which have been granted to them We have many other groups whom it would not be difficult to mention. When I was back in the west during the Easter recess this was the common subject of discussion. The question most f requently asked me was: What does the government intend to do with respect to the problem of the present cost of living? I told them what the government had indicated as being its policy. I had to pass the comment

at the same time that I could not be convinced that their policy would have any immediate favourable effect upon the problem confronting them.
All one has to do is to examine certain available statistics to realize what has occurred since 1946. In that year we find that the cost of living index stood at 123-6; in 1947, 135-5; 1948, 155; 1949, 160-8; 1950, 166-5; and the latest figure we have for 1951 is 179-7. If this debate were prolonged for a few more days it is conceivable that we would have more reason for speaking with greater heat than anyone has spoken upon this occasion because it is my understanding that the cost of living index for the month of March will be issued in a few days. Then we will be able to judge the effects of everything that has been done up to this time to meet the situation.
A person having the average per capita income of $786 in 1946, on the basis of a cost of living index of 100, found himself deprived of $150 in purchasing power as a consequence of the inflationary condition. If he received the average per capita income of $822 in 1947, based on the 100 per cent cost of living index he would find that he had lost $215 as a consequence of the inflationary trend because based on the -cost of living index of 1947 his $822 had been reduced to $607 compared with the base period when the cost of living index was 100. In 1948, if his income was the average per capita income of $919, based on the cost of living index of 100, he would find that by the end of that year his $919 had been reduced in effective purchasing power to $593, a loss in purchasing power of $326.
In 1949, with the average per capita income at $935, comparing the base period cost of living index of 100 with the index for that year of 160-8 the $935 would be worth just $582, or a loss of $353 in purchasing power compared with the base period. Then we come to 1950 when the average per capita income was $962. Taking the cost of living index at 100 it would be worth $962, but since the cost of living index was 166-5 the $962 had fallen to $578, or a loss of $384 in purchasing power. Then let us take the figures for 1951 up to the time of our last cost of living index announcement. The average per capita income during that period was $961, but having regard to the fact that the cost of living index was 179-7 the $961 had been reduced to $535, meaning a loss in effective purchasing power of $426.
These figures, Mr. Speaker, can be applied to any income that you may desire to take. I simply took the average per capita income for each of the years from 1946 to 1951. It
Cost of Living
is when hon. members are prepared to sit down, take these figures and undertake to ascertain their meaning as applied to old age pensioners and pensioners of other types, those trying to live on savings and our low income group of employees, that they will see exactly what effect the perniciously high cost of living has upon these groups of people. We have said before and we repeat that there is every evidence that health is being undermined as a consequence, and every evidence that morale is being undermined as a consequence. Of course the effect of these two things can certainly be adverse so far as any defence effort is concerned.
Recently in a speech in this house I indicated that I had received a great many communications from one dry-goods dealer in a town in my constituency. Since that time I have added a great many letters to the nineteen which I had then received showing the tremendous increases in the retail prices of footwear and clothing since the first of the year. The increases run as high as 25 per cent. I think we all realize that in any family where there are a number of kiddies, clothing becomes a very important item in the family budget.
As things are going today the only apparent solution is to go to the constituency of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and join the Doukhobor sect known as the sons of freedom. If this keeps on I am afraid that is where many Canadians with low incomes will have to go. We know that the index for February showed the cost of foodstuffs running as high as 224-5 points as compared with 100 for the base period. It is my personal conviction that the most substantial item in the family cost of living, particularly where there are kiddies, is this matter of food. Merchants tell me today that their customers are finding it more and more difficult to meet their accounts at the end of the month. Not long ago it was my privilege to attend a dinner which also was attended by a group of twelve men engaged in the hardware, grocery, and other businesses. I asked them to tell me frankly what was their experience, and as I said a moment ago they pointed out that more and more people are unable to pay their accounts at the end of the month. I asked if that appeared to result from the fact that people were buying many things that might be characterized as luxuries. Their reply was that on the contrary there was every evidence that people were cutting down more and more, and purchasing only those things which could properly be regarded as strictly essential. Some of those merchants told me that in

Cost of Living
many cases there was a falling off of volume, that people were spending the same amount of money but were obtaining substantially less for it.
I asked one of these businessmen whether it was his belief that many prices had been hiked unnecessarily as a consequence of the government's failure to indicate definite action in connection with price control. He told me of an interesting experience he had1 only a week before. A traveller came into his store and indicated that the price of a certain commodity had been increased by fifteen cents. He asked the traveller if he thought that increase was justified. The reply was that it was not, but since the government had employed a policy of controls if necessary but not necessarily controls they had increased their price by fifteen cents, so that if there was a cut-back of five cents they would still be ten cents ahead of the game. That sort of thing has taken place in many instances. True, there are many business people who have not taken advantage of the situation, but there is ample evidence that a great many have. I feel very much as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) expressed himself. We think we should definitely come to grips with this question and not just pass it off with the opposition voting for an amendment and the government voting against it, then allowing the matter to die. The hon. member for Macleod suggested that it would be a good thing if a matter such as this were referred to the banking and commerce committee of this house. Whatever else may be done I would urge that this course be followed. I am positive that as a result we would obtain some very enlightening and also very surprising facts.
I do not desire to take any more time on this occasion, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion let me emphasize that across this country we have groups of people who are finding it virtually impossible to pay their way. Only the other day I had a letter from an old age pensioner. Both he and his wife receive the maximum pension. He said that up to the present time, by cutting a few corners, they had been just able to pay their way, but that now they had reached the point where that seemed virtually impossible. If that was the case where both were receiving the pension, what must be the situation in the literally thousands of cases where only the husband gets the old age pension? Once again we urge the government to take appropriate action to meet this situation. The effects can be far more serious, as far as our nation is concerned, than some people seem to think.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) outlined his own philosophy and possibly that of the government on this whole question of the increased cost of living which is bothering members of this house and the people of Canada so much today. As I understand his philosophy it amounts to this, that the cost of living will continue to rise as long as various pressure groups within the country continue to try to get more and more for themselves. That is nothing new; that has been going on since the beginning of time. The minister implied that people are pretty well looked after because most of them belong to one or the other of the pressure groups who are getting more and more for themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no, he did not.


George Harris Hees: There is one very important group which many hon. members have pointed out in the last few days is not looked after; that is people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that he has already spoken in this debate, and he may not speak twice. He spoke at page 1757 of Hansard.


George Harris Hees: I think you will find that I spoke during the budget debate, but not during the cost of living debate.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member spoke on April 9 at page 1757 of Hansard.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Perhaps I can say a few of the things which were in the mind of my hon. friend. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) because the defence he put up, if it was intended to be a defence, was remarkably poor. The minister said he had not prepared it, and that I can well believe; but if he had prepared it I doubt if it would have been any better. There was no inkling or suggestion of a clue as to what the government was prepared to do about this tremendously vexing problem of higher prices and the rising cost of living.
The minister said there were pressure groups. I do not know what sort of pressure groups he had in mind; perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) could enlighten me. It would be very interesting to hear that the judges of Canada came down here as a pressure group to get an increase in pay or in pensions. I would doubt that such was the case; I rather think that out of the goodness of his heart

my hon. friend decided to give the judges of this country a little more money, of course thereby adding to the inflationary trend which the government has deplored. He is willing to do that for a certain group, which perhaps is not a pressure group, but he is not willing to do it for others.
There are two basic pressure groups in this country, of course. There are those who want controls taken off and kept off. That pressure group is made up of members of chambers of commerce, industrialists, managers of industries and entrepreneurs. That is the pressure group that has got the ear of the government, for the simple reason that the government is obviously the political arm of big business. There is another pressure group made up of the working section of this country, organized labour and organized agriculture, who for some time now have been asking that controls be reinstituted; but the government has turned a deaf ear.
There is a small pressure group made up of superannuated civil servants who are hoping to get some relief from the Minister of Finance, but they are not strong enough to be heard. There is a larger pressure group, but very weak, made up of old age pensioners who are hoping that some alleviation may be made of their tragic situation as it exists today, but they are not powerful enough to be heard; they are not powerful enough to be felt. So the pressure group which has the ear of the government is obviously that which wishes to see no controls imposed at all on this country.
It is true that organized labour wishes to see increases in wages when there are increases in prices, but the price increases always come before the demand for wage increases. The worker has to negotiate, to conciliate, to get his increase. On the other hand his employer has a perfect right at any time to raise the price of what he sells to whatever height he thinks the traffic can bear. The Minister of Finance said something else, a song which he is continually giving to us. He talked about the need for an increase in production. If we could get an increase in production, then prices would fall, he argues. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that production has been increasing in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But very slowly.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It has been increasing slowly or quickly, but it has been increasing and prices have been increasing. His argument, therefore, falls to the ground. Even though as he says the increase in production has been slow, nevertheless there
Cost of Living
has been an increase and there has been no corresponding decrease in the cost of living. It has been quite the reverse; the cost of living has gone up.
There is another factor in the government's policy which impresses me; I am sure it has impressed others. People realize today the dollar is becoming worth less and less. They realize that the dollar bill, as such, is losing value. They are determined, therefore, tc buy things because in things there will be some value. Therefore, by carrying out this deliberate policy of not imposing controls, the government is merely telling the people of Canada, "We are not going to impose controls; prices will probably rise and the best thing you can do is to buy those things which you need, and spend more". This is adding to the inflationary spiral which exists. There is only one political group in this country which I am satisfied is welcoming the government's decision, other than the Liberal party, and that is the communist party. They realize that inflation will hurt many people, will make them discontented, and it is on conditions such as these that the communists batten. They are amongst those who welcome the government's policy, a policy of inaction which is bringing nothing but misery to the people of this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there arc one or two things which I think still remain to be said on this debate on the cost of living. Some of them arise out of a statement which was made a few moments ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who adopted the attitude that, after all, this high cost of living is not peculiar to Canada; it exists in many other countries. It is, as it were, something which has been imported from outside; something which has descended upon us from the skies. It is universal, and the government really has nothing to do about it, no responsibility for it, and cannot do anything in any way to control it. There is a different attitude, Mr. Speaker, shown by the government with respect to anything for which they think they can claim credit. Then, of course, any good thing which descends upon this country, unlike the epistle according to Saint James, does not come down from on high but is solely and simply the responsibility of the government. All credit for those good things, according to the ministers who run this government, should accrue to them.
It is not good enough for any country, which carries on its affairs under a responsible system of government, for the ministers in charge of policy to say that this is some-

Cost of Living
thing which is a universal complaint, and tor which we have absolutely no responsibility.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No minister has ever said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that, because that is a different impression from the impression given by the minister in his speech a few minutes ago. It is a different impression from that gained from the speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Finance when he presented his budget.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just the contrary, he pointed out that there were certain things we could do domestically, and certain things we could not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am very interested in hearing what the minister says, but if he wants to answer he can make a speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have said that I do not go in for repetition any more than is necessary. Unfortunately, that does not go for my hon. friend.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps it is not worth repeating.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps, as the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) says, it is not worth repeating.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be, and it is certainly true of a good many of my hon. friend's statements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the minister knows he has said something which really does not bear analysis and will not stand up under examination, then he says "Well, of course, I do not believe in repeating myself." It is probably just as well that he does not, because then the fact that his remarks do not bear analysis and do not stand up under the searching light of examination would become even more evident than when he first made the statement. He is not the only minister in this government who has said that this inflation is something about which the government of Canada can do nothing, because we have to wait for the United States or some other country-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No minister of the government has ever made any such statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance
should perhaps read his own statement, and he should read the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And he should read the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have, and neither of them
ever made any such statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I recall very distinctly-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quote Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance is
never more effective than when he participates in debate from his seat. He is much more effective than when he participates in debate on his feet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is good both ways.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Obviously something which
has been said here tonight is getting under the skin of the Minister of Finance, or shall I say getting under-well, quite obviously another portion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under his skin or under his seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said it. I did not like to be personal. I do challenge any hon. member of the government, or any hon. member in any other part of the house, to read a statement on this subject by a minister as to what might or might not be done to control the increased cost of living and prevent inflation, that is to say to take direct action by the government, and to contradict me when I say their attitude has been that one of the requisites that must exist before we can take direct action is for a control policy to be instituted in the United States, and for that policy to take some effect there before we can do anything about it. I challenge any other minister or any other hon. member of the house to deny that the ministers of this government have repeated time without number, by way of excuse, that inflation and the rising cost of living is not confined to Canada alone. It is not something about which we should be distressed because it is a universal phenomenon; that was the word used' by the Minister of Finance, and that was the description "universal phenomenon."


Douglas Charles Abbott: World-wide, I think, was the word I used; world-wide phenomenon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, to be accurate, worldwide phenomenon. I am glad the minister corrected me. I am glad he admits to having used that phrase which he sought to deny a moment ago. So that that statement, repeated as it has been by the Minister of Finance, who says he never repeats anything-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just correcting my hon. friend. I was not repeating it, I was correcting a wrong quotation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am very interested in the
minister's distinction between a correction and a repetition. They have made that suggestion, and they have repeated it as though it somehow excused the government of Canada from the necessity of taking any

action to protect the people of Canada; as though the people of Canada are to relax and rejoice because they are not alone in their sufferings; as though we should find some consolation in the fact that we are not alone; that although the cost of living is high, and although suffering is caused to our old age pensioners, our retired veterans, retired service personnel and retired individuals who had tried, through their own efforts, to provide for their own retirement, even without government assistance, they should be happy because, after all, they are not the only ones who are distressed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better retire the government.


John Horne Blackmore: But then we have a Liberal government. They should take comfort in that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. As my friend the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has said, the government's attitude-and this is about what it amounts to-is this:	Let these
people continue to suffer because, after all, there are others suffering in other countries, and those who suffer in Canada can always be consoled by the thought that they have not a socialist government such as the people have in England.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or that they have not a coalition government such as the people have in Australia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or that they have not the troubles that the people have in New Zealand or that they have not the troubles that the people have in the United States where General MacArthur seems to be taking the centre of the stage. The government attitude seems to be that here our pensioners and our retired people on fixed incomes can relax because, although they are sharing the universal difficulties with other countries, they have that unique, outstanding and unusual blessing, namely, that they enjoy government by the Liberal party here in Ottawa. That is the attitude of this government. That is about all the hope and encouragement they offer to the people of this country who are suffering-and they are not suffering abroad or overseas; they are suffering here in Canada-from the high cost of living.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is nothing to what we are suffering from now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite sure the minister is suffering. The government do not like to hear people get up and criticize them. They do not like to hear people suggest that they
Cost of Living
could do something to ameliorate the situation if they would really put their minds to it and if they would not give us platitudes. This is the government which during the war and during the post-war years said so distinctly and so frequently that controls were the answer, controls were the thing that saved the people from the higher cost of living, controls were the thing which countered inflation in Canada. You remember, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do, and as well as every other hon. member in this house does, how the government took the credit for and boasted about the effects of its control program. No one maintains that controls will cure the basic cause of the evil. No one denies that other things are required to cure the things which cause this rise in the cost of living. But the government, by its own arguments in previous years with respect to controls, is stopped from denying that controls would check the disease, or that controls would prevent the cost of living from going higher. Admittedly, controls are a drastic measure. Controls are a measure which no one welcomes except one group in this house, and I do not wish to get into a political or doctrinaire argument.


An hon. Member:: You had better not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Where is the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)?


Edmund Davie Fulton: But no one, least of all the government that applied Lhem, can deny that they did check the increase, and that during a period of emergency they were applied for that purpose. This government tells us that we are in a period of emergency, and they call upon the people of Canada for efforts which they would not normally be called upon to make in peacetime with respect to economic as well as military and tax measures. That government should not, I say, shrink from its responsibility of taking those measures which would enable the people in turn to put forward their best efforts, secure and protected in the knowledge that while they were doing so-as it were, concentrating all their energies on the task which lay before them, and which the government ask them to accept-this creeping paralysis of inflation, this disease of a constantly-increasing cost of living, would not be attacking them through the back door as it is doing today. This government which talks so much about the universality of the present state of affairs, which says that they can dio nothing about it because the United States has not done anything about it, surely must have some answer to the fact that the controller of prices in the United States, Mr. DiSalle, speaking just a few days ago, said

Cost of Living
that Canada would have no alternative in his opinion but to apply controls when the full impact of the defence buying program hit this country. I should like to ask the government what steps they are taking to prepare a control program. We are supposed to be pumping $5 billion in three years into the stream of purchasing power in this country. Is that amount of money to be pumped in without any steps being taken to protect the people from the enormous inflationary effect that it will have? Are we to go along blithely waiting until some other country does something first? When are we going to reach the point where even the government will admit that the cost of living has risen to the point where something must be done? Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, why are the official figures on the cost of living index for the month of March delayed beyond the point at which they are usually delivered? This is the 30th day of April. To my recollection, the figures on the cost of living index for the previous month have never been delayed beyond the end of the month following.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The sixth or seventh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not of recent months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Last month they were published on the sixth or seventh of April.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the sixth or seventh of April?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fourth.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Was it the fourth?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the fourth of April?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Usually it is in the first week of the month.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should imagine that the Minister of Finance-or, if not he, then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) -would have a fairly good indication as to what the official cost of living index for the month of March was. Does the Minister of Finance know that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance does not know. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here. Does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) know?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mr. Sinclair:: Does the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) know?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you ever see such an uninformed cabinet?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is here. I believe the Department of

Labour runs a cost of living index of its own. Does the Minister of Labour know what the cost of living index for the month of March was?


Milton Fowler Gregg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I did know, it would1 be improper for me, as Minister of Labour, to tell it to the house tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Go on to the next one. He does not know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to the Minister of Labour, I accept his concept of his duty as it applies to him, although I do not accept it as an accurate definition of the duty of a minister of the crown with respect to giving information to the house and to the country. I certainly cannot force the Minister of Labour to give information which he is reluctant to give, but I should still like him to tell me if he knows what the figure is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Make your speech; we are not in committee now.


James Sinclair: Where do you think you are? In police court?


An hon. Member:: Who is on the stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will not answer.


James Sinclair: Do you know?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) knows.


James Garfield Gardiner: He does not even know you are talking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Justice is not interested, Mr. Speaker, so we will pass along to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley). I wonder if the Secretary of State knows what the official cost of living index is for the month of March.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has not been paying any more attention than the rest of us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is one for the book.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; he has not been paying any more attention than the rest of them; and none of them have been paying any attention to their responsibilities.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I withdraw that remark. I have been following every word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While they have been sitting there paying no attention to their responsibility over these months, the cost of living has continued to rise and will continue to rise so long as this lethargic-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Uninformed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -uninformed1, and uninterested government continues to sit here, neither interested in what the cost of living is nor concerned nor able to do anything about it, even though they do know-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try the parliamentary
assistants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I would not try the parliamentary assistants, because they can only speak for their ministers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They do not know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the ministers do not know, obviously the parliamentary assistants would not know either. You know, Mr. Speaker, we can make a joke out of this; at least the government can very easily, as they have just been doing, but it is rather more serious than that. It is serious; it is not a laughing matter nor a joking matter in the eyes of the people of this country. It is a matter on which the people of the country demand some action.


John George Diefenbaker: They have a Gallup poll on it, anyway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have evidence of what the people of this country think about the matter. We have evidence from the Gallup poll as to whether they think any action could be taken; and even if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) neither knows nor is interested in what the cost of living is, he is the head of a department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speak more loudly.


An hon. Member:: Send him a note.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he were to take more interest in the department, if he had any concern for the situation through the legislation which is on the statute books to investigate and to prosecute those who make unfair profits, he could do something to reduce the cost of living. The Minister of Justice shows no more interest in that matter than he has shown in this matter, or is shown by the other members of the government; therefore, Mr. Speaker, we can see through the attitude of the government, which they have shown in this debate tonight, that they regard this whole question as one to which they can show a supreme indifference, and one on which, when any member seeks to get information from the government as to what they propose to do, what are the facts
Cost of Living
upon which some action may be based, they take the attitude: Oh, well, after all, you are only a member of the House of Commons; you are only a member of the opposition, and what you say, speaking for the people of Canada, does not matter very much, because the government, even if they did know what the situation was, would not tell you, and if they told you they still would not do anything about it.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair and the motion before us is put, I want to call another matter to the attention of the house, namely, the near chaotic condition of the postal service in the Toronto and district area. We have raised this matter in the house before and have been assured by the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) and the parliamentary assistant that steps were being taken to correct this condition. On my visit to my riding last week I found that conditions are deteriorating more than ever in so far as that department is concerned. X speak whereof I know because there are more than 100 postal employees living within my riding.
Since the once a day delivery was instituted I have been in contact with the majority of these postal employees, and I have received representations during the past week from three associations of postal employees all insisting that matters, instead of improving, are getting worse. What is far worse than the undermining of the morale of the postal employees which has taken place is the disruption of the postal service. I had numerous telephone calls at my home from citizens, most of whom are carrying on their businesses from their places of residence. A number of them told me that they had been going as much as two days in succession without any mail delivery at all. Others have told me that they can have no idea now of the time of the day they are going to get their mail. It may be delivered in the forenoon, and it may not be delivered until after dinner at night.
I was rather surprised to find in the Toronto papers some ten or twelve days ago

a series of advertisements calling for mail carriers. When we were discussing this question in the house on an earlier occasion it was understood that the government's problem would be to find employment for those who were going to be relieved of their work by reason of the introduction of the one delivery a day. Instead of that we now find the government advertising for mail carriers. Some of those employed in the post office tell me that the department has been obliged to take men directly off the street without any civil service examination or civil service appointment and put them on the beats as completely untrained and inexperienced men to assist in mail deliveries.
What the mail carriers themselves have said to me is that in the first place they are still required to work more than an eight-hour day or a forty-four hour week. In spite of the longer hours there is no intimation whatever that they are to receive any compensation by way of pay for the extra hours worked. What is still worse, I am informed that the mail carriers are losing all interest in their jobs. I understand that a certain amount of clerical work has to be done by mail carriers in addition to delivering mail. I called some of this work to the minister's attention in a letter a few days ago. There is clerical work such as the re-direction of mail, keeping of records of changes of address and disposal of undelivered mail. I am told that these matters are now falling into arrears. Instead of being done at the time they should be done, sometimes they are left over for days or a week before being attended to.
The attitude the employees are taking is that if those responsible for the Post Office Department take the attitude that they are taking with reference to the employees, then there is just no point whatever in the employees themselves being more concerned about maintaining the service than are those officials responsible for it. Another matter has come to my attention. The one delivery a day is supposed to have been a bright idea that originated with the cabinet and was considered to be an economy measure whereby it would save $2 million or $3 million. I doubt very much whether that idea is the brain child of the cabinet ministers or anyone in the cabinet. In June 1949, the Canadian postal employees association through their national secretary forwarded a brief to the then postmaster general asking for certain reforms, changes and improvements in their conditions of work.
The postmaster general of that day, Mr. Bertrand, was away from Ottawa, and the deputy postmaster, Mr. Turnbull, replied to

the Canadian postal employees association in the name of the postmaster general. His letter was written on July 7, 1949, nearly two years before the cabinet conceived the idea of one delivery a day for economy purposes. The deputy postmaster general on that occasion wrote as follows:
In conclusion, I should again like to refer to the effect which further concessions would have on postal economy and which would inevitably bring in their train drastic revisions of present practices. These may include, for example, the reimposition of one delivery a day with lay-off of the surplus staff . . .
That was in reply to a brief submitted in June, 1949. That is the reply of the deputy postmaster general which to my mind constituted at that time a threat to the postal employees that if they persisted in asking for the forty-hour, five-day week, for permanent appointments for postal personnel, and for time and a half for overtime, they would have imposed upon them one delivery a day with lay-offs. That was the big stick which the deputy postmaster general held over the heads of the postal employees back in 1949. So I think one would be quite right in concluding with the postal employees organization that the application of this new order is simply the attainment of an objective which the deputy postmaster general, at least, had in mind for two or three years before it was introduced by the cabinet as an economy measure, and which was effectively used as a threat to keep postal employees from insisting on better working conditions.
I submit that the postal service as far as my particular riding is concerned has become so chaotic that nothing short of a thorough investigation by some independent committee will remedy it. I do not mind telling the Postmaster General that numerous postal employees in my riding are contemplating the possibility of going on strike and stopping the delivery of mail entirely. I suggest that is the last thing the Postmaster General would want, and the last thing the postal employees would want; but I assure him that the situation is becoming desperate. The minor improvements about which the parliamentary assistant told us the other day just are not meeting the situation. There are postal stations in Toronto where up to a week ago not a single walk had been checked. On many of the walks that were checked the supervisor was on the beat until nine o'clock at night before the delivery was completed. Many of those which were checked remain in exactly the same position as before.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and the house; and I assure the hon. gentleman that something more than
Postal Service
the piecemeal efforts of the past few months is needed to remedy the situation.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has been before this house on previous occasions, and I should like to join in his plea with respect to the whole question of the Post Office Department. But I would not want to confine myself to the one area dealt with by my hon. friend, because I am not sure that the troubles of the department in that area are any worse than they are elsewhere.
I believe the government and the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) must have come to the conclusion by now that all is not well in his department. It may be that the minister will have some explanation to give with respect to certain moves he is making in an effort to rectify some of the conditions that now exist, but I feel that nothing short of a full airing of the department is going to quell the public indignation which has arisen following some of the changes that have been made. When you have rural Canada up in arms over the mail delivery that is being given, when you also find that the urban sections are showing great dissatisfaction, I think surely it is time we had the matter investigated by the special committee that has been suggested so often from this seat. I do not like to think the mind of the government is so adamant in a case like this that it cannot be changed, because I cannot see that from their point of view they have very much to be concerned about in reference to a committee. If the Post Office Department is all right the government need not fear any kind of an investigation by any members of this house. If the department is not all right then every member has a right to find out what is wrong and to suggest a remedy. It seems to me that is a very simple conclusion. I do not want to suggest that the Postmaster General is trying to cover up the troubles of the department by hiding behind the smoke screen so often employed by the government and saying it would not be in the public interest. If ever anything would be in the public interest, in that it would satisfy the public and clear the air, it would be an investigation by a special committee of this house into the operations of the Post Office Department.
I am taking the risk of again treading the ground which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) so carefully delineated today; that is, I am going to risk repetition because sometimes the only way you can drill anything into this government is to repeat and repeat and repeat. Sometimes they turn a

Postal Service
deaf ear in the beginning to some of the reforms suggested from over here, and then come to their senses later on. That is the one hope I have for the Postmaster General, and I express it now.


Major James William Coldwell: What I wish to say fits in with what has been said already by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). I think the time has come when a good many matters in connection with our Post Office Department should be carefully considered and reforms instituted.
What I have in mind is that while a good deal can be said about the people who live in cities when they lose one delivery a day, and about the mail carriers who are losing some work as a result, I believe the worst treatment in connection with mail delivery is given those who live in small towns and villages, who have no mail delivery and who not only have to go to the post office to collect their mail but, if they want a box, have to pay box rental in addition. If we give free delivery in the cities, with the mail brought to the door and placed in the letter box, much more could be said for giving the people who live in the rural communities mail boxes without cost to the individuals who take the trouble to walk to the post office to collect their mail. Surely that should be apparent to every hon. member. I know that mail delivery in boxes comes to us from the early days of post office administration. It is something that has remained with us through the years and that we have taken as a matter of course. But I think the time has come when the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) and his officials should consider removing what I regard as an injustice and discrimination against those people who happen to live in the smaller places in Canada. I am making the suggestion to the Postmaster General that this is a matter which should be carefully considered, and this injustice removed.
I could talk about the people who carry the mail, and deliver it in the boxes that are located along the highways, the rural mail carriers, but I am not going to do that because an opportunity will be afforded when the post office estimates are before us. Since the delivery of the mail in the cities was brought before the house tonight, and quite properly, by the hon. member for York South, I am taking advantage of the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the minister the necessity for removing what I consider to be an injustice and a discrimination against the people-after all they are a very large

portion of the population-who live in the smaller towns across Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Since this discussion has been opened up in regard to the postal department, I do believe that this would be an appropriate point for me to refer to something which, previously, I have been able to deal with only by asking questions. I do so because it is something that does not apply to any one city, but which does require attention, and which does fit in with the suggestions that are being made for an examination of some of the problems that arise in connection with our postal service.
As many hon. members will recall, I have raised certain questions in regard to a situation which exists here in Ottawa, but which also exists in other cities across Canada. In Ottawa, there are a number of areas which have only been recently annexed to the city. In those areas there is no arrangement as yet in a considerable part for what is known as drop letter delivery. Representations have been made requesting drop letter service, but the answer has been given that in those areas which are not now receiving drop letter service the houses are not of the required density for a service of that kind, or the streets are not marked adequately to carry out that service. I am quite prepared to concede that there may be some difference of opinion as to what should be done in that case, but that does not answer the other part of the problem which seems to me to be utterly unjust and which should be attended to quite independently of the facts relating to the density of population or the marking of streets. In that, I am referring to the fact that in those areas letters require not a three cent stamp but a four cent stamp.
The people who live in those areas must put a four cent stamp on their letters, even if they are going to some other portion of the city of Ottawa. That might appear an injustice in itself, but what is a very real injustice is that in these days of postal advertising there are very few houses that do not receive a large number of circulars sent out to the household address or to people who purchase other things from some of the larger business houses. Quite naturally, those letters come out with a three cent stamp on the assumption that three cents will carry a letter anywhere in the city of Ottawa. I did not know that this point was going to be raised tonight or I could have brought here for this discussion a great number of letters that have been forwarded to me which are almost covered with postage-due stamps.

People who did not know that this was simply advertising material have been called upon to pay large sums of postage due, through the fact that someone sent letters to them thinking that they would be delivered in the ordinary city service. Many people, week by week, are called upon to pay a great deal in this penalty postage for reasons which are completely beyond their control, and representing no attempt, deliberate or otherwise, to disregard the requirement that four cents should be paid.
The answer that I received from the parliamentary assistant when I raised this question on one occasion when the Postmaster General was engaged elsewhere on the business of his department was to the effect that this was a statutory provision and that the Postmaster General could not vary that arrangement. I have pointed out by letter to the Postmaster General that since we are in session it is a simple matter for the government to introduce whatever amendment will deal with a situation of this kind. Other members who have spoken have indicated or have suggested that we have simply carried on from earlier days an arrangement which may have been perfectly satisfactory, but today conditions are much more complex in character. I believe therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General should plan now to make an appropriate amendment so that this subject will be dealt with during the current session.


William Moore Benidickson: All of that was out of order.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: The
Speaker is quite capable of handling any situation that is out of order. I have some things to point out pertaining to my own riding, and particularly Haliburton county. For instance, there is only a three-day train service on one branch line going from Kinmount to Bancroft, and there is no railway mail clerk on that train. The mail bags are put on the baggage car, and thrown out at the different stations. From the time a letter is written until an answer is received from Toronto, it takes seven days. This is not very good service for a tourist centre which is developing rapidly. I am not asking the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) to inaugurate something that is going to cost more money, but something which will cost less money. The amount of money the Canadian National asks for hauling this mail now is far more than the cost of hauling it by truck. This would permit a daily mail service for less money, and it certainly would be a great advantage to the people living in that area.
Postal Service
I have a further grievance to take up with the Postmaster General in particular, and not so much with his department. A year ago a vacancy was created in the postmastership in the village of Bobcaygeon. The man who retired was eighty years of age. The day he was retired a young fellow was put in the post office by the department. After some seven or eight months a competition was held by the civil service commission, and the man with the highest marks in that competition-


Mr. Rinfret:: But who failed on his written examinations.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, he did not fail on his
written examinations. The Postmaster General knows better than that, because he and I have talked it over. I have had correspondence on it both with him and the civil service commission. As to this fellow who won the competition, I have the form sent to him by the civil service commission saying that he won it. I will grant you that the marks were close. He won by only 1-1 per cent. But nevertheless, the man who won the competition served six years in the army, five years of them overseas with the artillery, in Africa, in Italy and on the continent. The man who got the job was in the air force for eighteen months, two months in England with the ground crew. Of course neither of them received the pension, according to my understanding; and from the standpoint of the veterans priority, probably the young fellow had as much right to the job as had the other fellow who had the greater service. But nevertheless it was done on the authority of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret). He told me himself over the phone that his officials had decided on this, that the younger fellow had been put in the post office; although I have a letter from him, signed by him, stating that the fact of the man being put in there on a minute's notice would not carry any weight whatsoever when the competition was held, but that the man who received the highest marks in the competition would receive the job. The man who received the highest marks in the competition received on the 29th day of May-or it was dated on the 29th day of May-a notification that he had received the highest marks in the competition, and that his appointment would be made by the Post Office Department on or about September 30. But that is something which never happened. I was down here on the 29th of September. In fact, I was down on the 28th, and it was two days before I got talking to the Postmaster General about this situation. However, I told him then that his officials had made this arrangement. The deputy postmaster general was not in

Postal Service
town and had not been in town, because I inquired. Who made the appointment, I do not know; but that is what was told to me. But I lay the trouble right at the minister's own door. He was head of the department, and I think he should not try to pass the buck on to any official. He told me that under section 24, I think it is-I am not sure of this because I have not the act here-of the Civil Service Act he is right for cause. I should like to know what the cause was.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Because there was a prior certificate issued by the commission.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will show you the certificate issued by the commission. I have it in my office. I did not know that this matter was coming up, or I would have had it here.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There was a prior certificate issued in favour of the other man.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Two wrongs never made a right, and the minister should know that. If the civil service commission made a mistake on the first one, they certainly did not make any mistake on the second one; and they knew they sent the first one out when they sent the second one out. More than that, the minister overrode the civil service commission's decision under section 24, subsection (c) of the Civil Service Act. I should like to know what the cause was, because the man who did not get the job was recommended by the Canadian Legion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not from Bobcaygeon.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That was just three or four fellows who got together afterwards. That was three or four Liberals who got together afterwards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That legion was not formed when this man was chosen by the Canadian Legion. It was the Legion that they all belonged to, maybe ten or twelve miles from that town, but that area was all included. He was recommended by the Legion, by the general commander, by his commanding officer overseas. He was recommended by the reeve of the town or village in which he lived. He was recommended by the mayor of the town and he was also recommended by the defeated Liberal candidate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Surely; and he was recom-nended by you too.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to know what ;he cause was that he did not get the job. That is what I should like to know. I should like the Postmaster General to declare himself on that point.
[Mr. Hodgsond
Then I wish to say a word as to the couriers in the town of Lindsay. I think it is the only town in my riding that has mail delivery. These men are heavily loaded with mail. The other day one man's mail bag weighed over sixty pounds. When a man starts out with sixty pounds of mail on his back, going up and down steps from house to house, it means a fairly hard day's labour. Some have been laid off there. I am glad to say they have obtained better jobs, probably at better pay. But if the Postmaster General saw fit to increase the price of second-class and third-class mail, whatever it was, he is probably within his rights. He has to make his department pay. We are not asking first-class service at the expense of the government. I think he was wise to make reductions to make the thing pay but I think it is a big mistake to cut down the couriers to the degree that he did.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Just following the discussion previous to this about the high cost of living, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have had numerous complaints from the riding which I represent stating that the increase in the cost of mail delivery means a tremendous increase in the cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is another instance of a hidden tax and I believe the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The debate on the cost of living has been decided by the house.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am dealing with the post office. I will admit that you cannot eat mail or make a suit of clothes out of it, but it affects the postal department. My subject affects the postal department, when the rates for delivery are increased by one hundred per cent by the postal department.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What does it cost now to deliver the usual weekly notice from the church and what was the cost a year ago, if I am not right?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The over-all increase was not one hundred per cent.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If I am not right, are you right in saying that I am wrong when I say that the cost has been increased one hundred per cent? I still contend that I am right. I am not saying that the increase is not justified, but I am saying that people are complaining about that one hundred per cent increase. It is a one hundred per cent increase.

Any time this government takes it upon itself to increase the cost of living by one hundred per cent, through any department, I think the citizens of Canada are entitled to a lengthy andi thorough explanation of why this cost is increased by one hundred per cent. That is the question. These people want to know and they should know. If the increased costs are justifiable, I would point out that the public of Canada are long suffering. They have put up with this government for sixteen years, and I know they can take it. Surely in a matter of that magnitude, a one hundred per cent increase in cost of a department on any item is worthy of an explanation to the people. I can get no explanation, because apparently it is not in the public interest or we would have that explanation. I should not have to give it or try to give it, or try to explain it in any way. The explanation should have been given to the public long ago as to why such a drastic increase in the rate was going to be inaugurated or imposed on the citizens of Canada. What is happening to the money? Was it because of terrible inefficiency of the postal department prior to this drastic increase, or why was this drastic increase merited? Is it that there is to be some future terrific expansion that has never been known in that department before? The public should know. The opposition should know. If we knew these things, we would probably not be too critical; but we certainly have every right to criticize the great unknown, when the unknown is an increased cost imposed on thousands of people, to the extent of one hundred per cent on their cost of living.
PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance that arises out of the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it applies to the area which I represent in this house. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been getting off pretty easy today, and I think perhaps this is just as good a time as any to raise this grievance and draw to his attention something that is happening. I think this is a justifiable grievance. I have received during the past three or four weeks scores of letters drawing this thing to my attention, and I have selected just one, which is typical of all that I have received, and I am going to refer briefly to the letter, Mr. Speaker, so as to draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. This letter is from Dimsdale, in the Peace river area, and reads as follows:
I am writing on behalf of seven persons all tributary to Grovedale post office. These persons,
Prairie Farm Assistance Act listed below, have been declared ineligible to receive P.F.A.A. benefits under an amendment to the act which declares any farmer ineligible who filed on a homestead after 1940.
The names of the people follow, but that is of no interest to the house. I continue:
Information furnished to the farmers union of Alberta by the P.F.A. people in Edmonton was to the effect that the amendment was only intended to apply to an area in the southeast corner of the province where people had been once helped by the provincial government to move out of a drought-stricken area to more favourable locations. No doubt you will remember the circumstances.
It appears that the vacated land there had been re-settled with the advent of more moist seasons. Then came more drought and constant application for P.F.A. benefits. Our information was that the amendment was to discourage settlement of that area. Now the amendment is interpreted to apply to all who entered on homestead leases from 1940 on. That does appear to me monstrously discriminatory.
During the spring session of 1950 an amending bill was passed through this house, and in the course of the discussion of the amendment on June 7 the Minister of Agriculture had these things to say, as reported at page 3310 of Hansard
What we say in the bill is that any lands that were not under private ownership at 31st December, 1940, are not to come under the act when they have been taken over from the government by some private person or organization. Lands that were still held by governments on the 31st day of December, 1940, do not come under the act as amended.
The intention is that any lands still owned by the government after some forty or fifty years of homesteading, and almost as many years when the lands were open for purchase and nobody thought they were sufficiently good either to be homesteaded or purchased during that period of time, are not good enough to be brought under this legislation after it is passed. That is the only principle underlying the bill.
In the Peace river country there are hundreds of tracts of land, still considered as crown lands, that were not opened for homestead purposes or for sale until recent years. As a matter of fact, they were not even opened for agricultural leases by the government of Alberta until the past three, four or five years. The reason that they were not opened for settlement was that the government of Alberta tried to profit from the mistakes that had been made in the earlier years of settlement of the west, during which time settlers went away out in the far-flung areas, many, many miles from cities or from existing services, settled there, built up towns and villages, and settlements and then began to howl for services. That was the kind of haphazard settlement that went on in the days of dominion government administration of the natural resources of the prairie provinces.
To profit by these mistakes the government of Alberta said: We will open only those

Prairie Farm Assistance Act areas that are contiguous to already existing services, and we will hold in reserve, even though they may be perfectly good lands, any lands which are not contiguous to existing services, and we will hold them closed to settlement until such time as services are near, or until it will be practicable to extend the services to them.
These lands of which I am speaking in various parts of the Peace river country are lands that were so held in reserve by the government of the province of Alberta. They discouraged homesteading and settlement in those particular parts of the country; and it was only when the boys began returning from the services, the army, the navy and the air force after the war that they began to make these pieces of land available for settlement.
Instead of selling the lands outright the government there decided it would be wiser to form agricultural leases and grant these leases to the returning young men and other young men who had not been in the services, but who needed to get land to establish themselves on farms, granting these leases for a period extending over ten years. The terms of the leases include clauses making it possible for the lessee to purchase the land at any time before the ten-year period is up for a specified amount of money. However, it is the scheme under which young men who have not much capital can get started on a farm. A great many agricultural leases have been granted by the province on property there, and in an area where drought rarely strikes.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: In the Peace river country, although drought rarely strikes, the people who farm these lands have to pay the rates on every bushel of wheat which they market, and therefore they do qualify for assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, provided that they hold the property under the proper arrangement. When the minister put that amendment through last year I do not think he had in mind excluding from the act such lands as I have described to him. To support
my contention I am going to quote further from what he said, as reported at page 3310 of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Low the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate, and if it is concluded we will call the five departments which were mentioned by the leader of the house on Friday evening. Then we shall take up the budget resolutions, and if they are concluded, the resolutions standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the order paper, followed by Bills Nos. 191 and 192; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) having to do with the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act; and then Bill No. 195.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven- o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply on April 27]:

[Stage Direction]
523.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital, $6,498,350.
524.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $310,000.
525.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities in the development of and improvement to airports, the sites of which have been provided by such municipalities, $130,000.
526.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, $244,920.
Administrative division-
527.	Air services administration, $215,705.
B-General-
Air transport board-
528.	Salaries and other expenses, including Canadian delegation to the International Civil Aviation Organization, $247,741.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 1, 1951